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 D890DCC8 for ; Wed, 9 Dec 2015 00:23:28 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-io0-f176.google.com (mail-io0-f176.google.com [209.85.223.176]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C3E9714D for ; Wed, 9 Dec 2015 00:23:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: by ioc74 with SMTP id 74so42263307ioc.2 for ; Tue, 08 Dec 2015 16:23:27 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=SLk+kfneWCv5O93hRiyFpNtYMwvV7p8KQpm2CpIQxgU=; b=uU4HLcrdj+rBZafXl9OjP5gxkNi/8B2ttBx3paLUc6naQh7/4rP6yFdoTd6OSPmpao vNhNnYyxnTq3BdFxpSk1wFTBBij0KvX/mzORwqdFLB6Mf05kPU8hMdugGDakXnGihQRn AoUGDUHLYI9CacYpLBG0b4BAHivegv7klA9xPZZm580/qoA67f6K/Qsnof3AoyRgSBYF e68sANQy39q4RNYshkTLAOHhjVVakV9quh/yjYggxr5otVJnl5Xv9n7tOMqw8zBKXZvd 4aGcmF9781y6c0IVfpsqTVR31BqfKCCgqJ3Q4JeASBkPs5wrM/cdw0NznsahheXjdVxJ vh7A== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.107.34.199 with SMTP id i190mr2806199ioi.150.1449620607244; Tue, 08 Dec 2015 16:23:27 -0800 (PST) Sender: gmaxwell@gmail.com Received: by 10.107.192.70 with HTTP; Tue, 8 Dec 2015 16:23:27 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <5F73C59C-7939-4937-839D-CA93880CB21F@toom.im> References: <5F73C59C-7939-4937-839D-CA93880CB21F@toom.im> Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2015 00:23:27 +0000 X-Google-Sender-Auth: G3MibVl-ICOaReLTi5O25NInIaI Message-ID: From: Gregory Maxwell To: Jonathan Toomim Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, FREEMAIL_FROM, 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 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Capacity increases for the Bitcoin system. 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: Wed, 09 Dec 2015 00:23:28 -0000 On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 11:48 PM, Jonathan Toomim wrote: > I understood that SegWit would allow about 1.75 MB of data in the average > case while also allowing up to 4 MB of data in the worst case. This means > that the mining and block distribution network would need a larger safety > factor to deal with worst-case situations, right? If you want to make sure By contrast it does not reduce the safety factor for the UTXO set at all; which most hold as a much greater concern in general; and that isn't something you can say for a block size increase. With respect to witness safety factor; it's only needed in the case of strategic or malicious behavior by miners-- both concerns which several people promoting large block size increases have not only disregarded but portrayed as unrealistic fear-mongering. Are you concerned about it? In any case-- the other improvements described in my post give me reason to believe that risks created by that possibility will be addressable.