😬😬😬 View quoted note →

We propose: BIP-XXXX: Removal of Witness Discount and Restoration of Serialized Block Size Limit

BIP-XXXX: Removal of Witness Discount — ARTEL 21

Wasn't SegWit already deployed as a soft fork? How is removing the discount also a soft fork? SegWit was technically a soft fork: old nodes continued to accept blocks because they validated only the stripped serialization (without witness data), which remained within the 1,000,000-byte limit. However, the deployment introduced entirely new consensus concepts that did not exist before: witness data as a separate serialization stream, block weight as a new accounting dimension, virtual size (vsize) as a user-facing abstraction, and the WITNESS_SCALE_FACTOR as an arbitrary multiplier. These concepts were not present in the pre-SegWit protocol. Old nodes did not validate them; they simply did not see them. This proposal removes those added concepts and returns to a single, transparent metric: serialized bytes. The rule change is a soft fork because the valid block set is strictly reduced. Any block valid under a 1,000,000-byte serialized limit is automatically valid under the current weight limit, because weight = stripped_size × 3 + total_size ≤ 4 × total_size ≤ 4,000,000.

Please read our proposal

BIP-XXXX: Removal of Witness Discount — ARTEL 21

1 MB is old new constant. Let's start restoration. #bitcoin #bipxxxx

@Jack K @PlebNick what is 1MB block size is equivalent in our universe: * One bit associated with a Planck-area element of a horizon — quantum of information. * One Planck area — quantum of information-bearing surface. * One quantum of action (h) — minimum physical event/update. * One irreversible bit erasure (Landauer limit) — minimum entropy increment. * Maximum entropy increase per time step — closest analogue to Bitcoin’s 1 MB/block. ?

I agree with the logic and hard constraints. Will add it into the abstract I’ve started working on. Can you elaborate on the speed of light? View quoted note →

BIP-XXXX: Removal of Witness Discount and Restoration of Serialized Block Size Limit Abstract This proposal removes witness discount accounting introduced by Segregated Witness and replaces the current block weight limit with a strict serialized block size limit of 1,000,000 bytes. All transaction data, including witness data, SHALL count equally toward the block size limit. SegWit serialization, witness commitments, transaction malleability fixes, script versioning, and compatibility with existing SegWit and Taproot outputs are preserved. Motivation Segregated Witness introduced a distinction between witness and non-witness bytes for block accounting. Witness data currently receives a 75% discount. This: 1. Obscures actual blockchain growth. 2. Increases chain size relative to uniform accounting. 3. Creates incentives favoring specific transaction encodings. 4. Treats different bytes unequally despite consuming network resources. Every byte transmitted, validated, and stored imposes costs. Consensus accounting should therefore correspond directly to serialized size. Rationale Equal Accounting A witness byte occupies storage and bandwidth like any other byte. Consensus accounting SHOULD therefore be based on actual serialized size rather than weighting factors. Preservation of SegWit Benefits The witness discount is independent from: * Transaction malleability fixes. * Witness serialization separation. * Script versioning. * Native SegWit outputs. * Taproot compatibility. * Lightning compatibility. These features remain unchanged. Decentralization Reducing permitted chain growth lowers long-term bandwidth, storage, and synchronization costs for node operators. Fee Market Scarcer block space strengthens fee discovery and encourages migration of routine payments toward higher-layer protocols. Specification Beginning at activation height H: Block Size Limit A block is valid if: SerializedBlockSize ≤ 1,000,000 bytes where SerializedBlockSize includes witness data. Removal of Weight Accounting The following consensus concepts are removed: * Block weight * Transaction weight * Virtual size (vsize) Consensus validation SHALL no longer enforce weight-based limits. Witness Data Witness serialization, witness commitments, witness programs, and Taproot semantics remain unchanged. Transaction IDs Transaction identifiers continue to exclude witness data as defined by SegWit. Deployment This proposal MAY be deployed as a soft fork. At height H: * Blocks exceeding 1,000,000 serialized bytes SHALL be invalid. Because every block valid under the new rules is also valid under the current rules, the valid block set is strictly reduced. Backward Compatibility All existing transaction formats remain valid. Existing SegWit and Taproot outputs continue to function without modification. Security Considerations Reduced Chain Growth This proposal reduces the maximum amount of data committed to the blockchain. Increased Fee Pressure A reduction in available block space may increase transaction fees and mempool competition. Layer-Two Incentives Higher settlement costs may encourage greater utilization of payment channels and other higher-layer protocols. Miner Revenue The effect on miner revenue depends on future demand for block space and cannot be predicted in advance. #bitcoin #bipxxxx

Best take as far as I understand Bitcoin atm. @Jack K it would be great to see your recent replies on Nostr to be turned into articles and videos. View quoted note →

@calle what is your take against bip110? Curious to better understand your logic.

Video content anyone?

Read @The Bitcoin Lens , upgrade your mind. One day it will be studied in all universities (or similar places in post-fiat world). Let’s bring this day closer. #bitcoin