From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D2F42FA0 for ; Sat, 19 Dec 2015 17:43:18 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from outmail148111.authsmtp.net (outmail148111.authsmtp.net [62.13.148.111]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2502D141 for ; Sat, 19 Dec 2015 17:43:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-c232.authsmtp.com (mail-c232.authsmtp.com [62.13.128.232]) by punt23.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id tBJHhGh0007487; Sat, 19 Dec 2015 17:43:16 GMT Received: from muck ([24.114.24.241]) (authenticated bits=128) by mail.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id tBJHhAb0037868 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Sat, 19 Dec 2015 17:43:15 GMT Date: Sat, 19 Dec 2015 09:43:10 -0800 From: Peter Todd To: jl2012 Message-ID: <20151219174309.GB30640@muck> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="nVMJ2NtxeReIH9PS" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Server-Quench: fbe18f26-a677-11e5-829e-00151795d556 X-AuthReport-Spam: If SPAM / abuse - report it at: http://www.authsmtp.com/abuse X-AuthRoute: OCd2Yg0TA1ZNQRgX IjsJECJaVQIpKltL GxAVKBZePFsRUQkR aAdMdwsUHFAXAgsB AmMbWlNeVF57WGU7 aQ5PbARZfEhKQQdu UVdMSlVNFUssc2Z5 Xm9MUhlxcA1AcDB0 Z0RmECYJCUVyI0R7 Xx9SEmobZGY1bX0X UkkNagNUcQZLeRZA PlV6Uj1vNG8XDSg5 AwQ0PjZ0MThBHWxu Tw4XIF0bXUsHViE9 WxYPBi5nBkoLWys0 NR9uNV8AHA4UNUk/ K1I9VBoRPxgKFgxZ GSMFACZCb0cMXTtj FgZTWUpWGjlaSiQU GRw6L1dFDDJfUTYw X-Authentic-SMTP: 61633532353630.1037:706 X-AuthFastPath: 0 (Was 255) X-AuthSMTP-Origin: 24.114.24.241/587 X-AuthVirus-Status: No virus detected - but ensure you scan with your own anti-virus system. X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Segregated witness softfork with moderate adoption has very small block size effect X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 19 Dec 2015 17:43:18 -0000 --nVMJ2NtxeReIH9PS Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 11:49:25AM -0500, jl2012 via bitcoin-dev wrote: > I have done some calculation for the effect of a SW softfork on the > actual total block size. Note how the fact that segwit needs client-side adoption to enable an actual blocksize increase can be a good thing: it's a clear sign that the ecosystem as a whole has opted-into a blocksize increase. Not as good as a direct proof-of-stake vote, and somewhat coercive as a vote as you pay lower fees, but it's an interesting side-effect. --=20 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org 00000000000000000188b6321da7feae60d74c7b0becbdab3b1a0bd57f10947d --nVMJ2NtxeReIH9PS Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQGrBAEBCACVBQJWdZcqXhSAAAAAABUAQGJsb2NraGFzaEBiaXRjb2luLm9yZzAw MDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMTg4YjYzMjFkYTdmZWFlNjBkNzRjN2IwYmVjYmRhYjNi MWEwYmQ1N2YxMDk0N2QvFIAAAAAAFQARcGthLWFkZHJlc3NAZ251cGcub3JncGV0 ZUBwZXRlcnRvZC5vcmcACgkQwIXyHOf0udy+QAf/ZjClqiE2it2GVkhi+dFg8Grq pjjjlPMDxmk3y/zGhbHnISdcUJydXIUB3TKkjYCCNMTCI3jiZ8pKvZMMWIX6XJND XHSCImQEnNZwQbTzfd5+Ppvkdn8L9dYor8T9ayBF7s2Q1DTxCsI/Plgxb7nc5yFJ NHu72LNJC+2bAQvRf5SMnQQXz/IoLQVd1yVO8vFCAt2uz7Dg80wVXauXSI8dkqWR y6pBS8dwanjxrw7MkfnhKqiwXYm7dwIqV88LSE53KQQe/e96vgfD2SpuFUHjYv3p rwkh44ejm9fvyfzCF4YO3QDQMehgVPfHORaNEr0qWrYn37p1CXe0jKbinqCErg== =aFh2 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nVMJ2NtxeReIH9PS--