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 A9634B49 for ; Tue, 9 May 2017 15:45:14 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from sender-of-o52.zoho.com (sender-of-o52.zoho.com [135.84.80.217]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0099D141 for ; Tue, 9 May 2017 15:45:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.8.8.2] (119246245241.ctinets.com [119.246.245.241]) by mx.zohomail.com with SMTPS id 1494344711400486.05204452419196; Tue, 9 May 2017 08:45:11 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.2 \(3259\)) From: Johnson Lau In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 9 May 2017 23:45:04 +0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <7B918396-5968-4908-83C8-0F77DA8DB037@xbt.hk> References: To: Sergio Demian Lerner X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3259) X-ZohoMailClient: External X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE 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 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Some real-world results about the current Segwit Discount X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 May 2017 15:45:14 -0000 > On 9 May 2017, at 21:49, Sergio Demian Lerner via bitcoin-dev = wrote: >=20 >=20 > So it seems the 75% discount has been chosen with the idea that in the = future the current transaction pattern will shift towards multisigs. = This is not a bad idea, as it's the only direction Bitcoin can scale = without a HF.=20 > But it's a bad idea if we end up doing, for example, a 2X blocksize = increase HF in the future. In that case it's much better to use a 50% = witness discount, and do not make scaling risky by making the worse case = block size 8 Mbytes, when it could have been 2*2.7=3D5.4 Mbytes. >=20 As we could change any parameter in a hardfork, I don=E2=80=99t think = this has any relation with the current BIP141 proposal. We could just = use 75% in a softfork, and change that to a different value (or = completely redefine the definition of weight) with a hardfork later.