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 91433EB6 for ; Thu, 17 Dec 2015 15:51:41 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-lb0-f170.google.com (mail-lb0-f170.google.com [209.85.217.170]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C5D73122 for ; Thu, 17 Dec 2015 15:51:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-lb0-f170.google.com with SMTP id kw15so47953895lbb.0 for ; Thu, 17 Dec 2015 07:51:40 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=P0uW6V+lYowy4ix7VAyC5toFIgeB3+gx+/jwWYGDFOo=; b=U6UlnAhvv9FGh9glHLVDxNYexXW+GxMcURVGOQ9OrFd0MbPrC3G4tH/5B9W6PlpK2V VU795dCkzucPvZ/NL14gLn9nIoWem2A2QbN4TK0wKFkqgv7/3wYwC4yhBiqLcwvqH5b6 lltFfvjISkGAGuQy6ySyfBDSFETKMO62DFv6CjbhoteWbsPa8APn/v64k3F2iodNVZOp SJy1aM8dGZWmAXWoUAWDUxxwsnnzNrisC0GArL4ti6gE5GXeSQHiWnLmedvTO54Mdrnb mRtEk6Xi/4DcOVAtJ349k0bxBmMcpg8U18D5kqi1rQhCypBZhZw+sHC4wgCuEhd6gksR 6vvg== X-Received: by 10.112.160.202 with SMTP id xm10mr18841818lbb.22.1450367499003; Thu, 17 Dec 2015 07:51:39 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.25.89.139 with HTTP; Thu, 17 Dec 2015 07:51:19 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <49257841-66C8-4EF7-980B-73DC604CA591@mattcorallo.com> <9869fe48a4fc53fc355a35cead73fca2@xbt.hk> From: "sickpig@gmail.com" Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 16:51:19 +0100 Message-ID: To: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c261ac926d4e052719ff4e X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,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 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 15:53:46 +0000 Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Segregated Witness in the context of Scaling Bitcoin 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: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 15:51:41 -0000 --001a11c261ac926d4e052719ff4e Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 2:09 PM, Jorge Tim=C3=B3n < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > Unless I'm missing something, 2 mb x4 =3D 8mb, so bip102 + SW is already > equivalent to the 2-4-8 "compromise" proposal (which by the way I never > liked, because I don't think anybody should be in a position to > "compromise" anything and because I don't see how "let's avoid an > unavoidable economic change for a little bit longer" arguments can > reasoably claim that "we need to kick the can down the road exactly 3 mor= e > times" or whatever is the reasoning behind it). > isn't SegWit gain ~75%? hence 2mb x 1.75 =3D 3.5. 4x is theoric gain you get in case of 2-2 multisig txs. am I missign something obvious? --001a11c261ac926d4e052719ff4e Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 2:09 PM, Jorge Tim=C3=B3n <= ;bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

Unless I'm missing something, 2 = mb x4 =3D 8mb, so bip102 + SW is already equivalent to the 2-4-8 "comp= romise" proposal (which by the way I never liked, because I don't = think anybody should be in a position to "compromise" anything an= d because I don't see how "let's avoid an unavoidable economic= change for a little bit longer" arguments can reasoably claim that &q= uot;we need to kick the can down the road exactly 3 more times" or wha= tever is the reasoning behind it).


isn&= #39;t SegWit gain ~75%? hence 2mb x 1.75 =3D 3.5.

4x is = theoric gain you get in case of 2-2 multisig txs.

am I m= issign something obvious?
=C2=A0

--001a11c261ac926d4e052719ff4e--