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 161FBF35 for ; Sun, 20 Dec 2015 03:37:27 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-io0-f170.google.com (mail-io0-f170.google.com [209.85.223.170]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9A497144 for ; Sun, 20 Dec 2015 03:37:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-io0-f170.google.com with SMTP id o67so126169263iof.3 for ; Sat, 19 Dec 2015 19:37:26 -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=sTIR02NW8RH97DbovMnemus9rintzR2HCt35Ypgk3n8=; b=bA6kIKVE9MkmPwNjpNigmIhkdKCD3CIe0tGhHypar+BB2qGomqXNfuXBN7bmMSV8iu vQnqeJGIVOnYPTvsIDnNZ+pY3EbviXdUNdi1ZbM0oo2eZ5wCiwKAwd0H6pYogHwI5dxo w9Gd59b9vwfa5GUQLPXFMlNTCgsYY6AHN2TyMCz2IkGmxH0jGIgjwWNjXUx0TPk3RFby CwoetWfk9ffkvMBSCvJSRA9BAqGlMc3FsEimKUENwMh3+uadTjLoZVTvYtXMksxY/Uob Fwz09yltyjCJ2FkGnXYuMSK+3fweeKmU4FhuDOSPI2zIgfhfeiqQUh3YBdZAXqgRVmCx CksQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.107.13.143 with SMTP id 137mr12593439ion.72.1450582646148; Sat, 19 Dec 2015 19:37:26 -0800 (PST) Sender: nbvfour@gmail.com Received: by 10.36.20.142 with HTTP; Sat, 19 Dec 2015 19:37:26 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20151219174309.GB30640@muck> References: <20151219174309.GB30640@muck> Date: Sat, 19 Dec 2015 19:37:26 -0800 X-Google-Sender-Auth: t9UHaLyDU0hqVjy_nvFj_MIU0-U Message-ID: From: Chris Priest To: Peter Todd 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@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: Sun, 20 Dec 2015 03:37:27 -0000 By that same logic, any wallet that implemented P2SH is also voting for an increased block size, since P2SH results in smaller transactions, in the same way SW results in smaller transactions. On 12/19/15, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev wrote: > 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. > > -- > 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org > 00000000000000000188b6321da7feae60d74c7b0becbdab3b1a0bd57f10947d >