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 754C341C for ; Sun, 2 Apr 2017 11:43:57 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-ua0-f172.google.com (mail-ua0-f172.google.com [209.85.217.172]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ADDB6D0 for ; Sun, 2 Apr 2017 11:43:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ua0-f172.google.com with SMTP id 17so15226349uah.0 for ; Sun, 02 Apr 2017 04:43:56 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=jtimon-cc.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Gh6AFVvF6Y0xeCjq7belO0LHAZL3CcvX2Gt4y02uvQI=; b=cXP2/U73lHoOX1ZNgmUNF6+q/hpQx+0+trYUOhqw6ZRinGS1zbkEgtb9JFRWHrBwV1 jjwGXbFFKH4QuZDquuPIdeDihCYZtcqrOLxI7kwwyIurDDM3h0SoU5sDEk6K3AtguQXm HTHKcL3cc9YbEG3Qz817cxsEl84fbCmpQCdbtNvfmJzyrhR0kKCxkiEvDA5aQACSuAGz knugbee2Egw18LD02Y6Mgwo0D00cxwFhcuGQpFsRbuKKvKO6jmsDHx+2K34Nux1/fNUV Zx3D32kSDK3h9cgvZj4vOTL4h/uC2LJP/DRUx73Xd3l/MGtNEJpfkFxe2PfaW8mXxhcn 6ccw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Gh6AFVvF6Y0xeCjq7belO0LHAZL3CcvX2Gt4y02uvQI=; b=HmdinhgrW3OQD6Jyk1ybBKrdxHZoIPHFpMTFdaF1LwdHFXLfWVWjHoBchRyEaXjMIQ QbhWZDIdQRwXOC3tzv+NZBMomEsYcrj652MQuMrr/O1gUbTByDEqka7nkPJwq/6ql7av X9EVDiMlnTiQZM0ObhaHgfLydSgm2nM1Pqtu3li6Hb28Ks2uK5XmxfjTbqezzmVjHXr9 y7kxaWp9tpf9XrHy0wjLWZpSw6DZINEtrvgrMci1K1oGi6c87VdUL9oiTq9YOaY/tRhm f7GueEw5W5bTKqpYE1BTpdONDpDUJ9zZpt+4LTBGZNk5mUrYPr1whMmVms0GRuJn1a7M 9iag== X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H2hrc6RqxH2dTphiB0Q5sp/5zLQQt/hO9OIUuViiCfyaXHl6slx12mwpKzkyklSvc16/a4OZxHAjFOKrQ== X-Received: by 10.176.16.73 with SMTP id g9mr4989753uab.78.1491133435632; Sun, 02 Apr 2017 04:43:55 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.31.151.136 with HTTP; Sun, 2 Apr 2017 04:43:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.31.151.136 with HTTP; Sun, 2 Apr 2017 04:43:54 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <1CF1FD5D-8D29-4783-823F-B3F588D5C5CE@mattcorallo.com> From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= Date: Sun, 2 Apr 2017 13:43:54 +0200 Message-ID: To: Natanael Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f403045e33b2be6e1b054c2d8e07 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, HTML_MESSAGE, 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] Segwit2Mb - combined soft/hard fork - Request For Comments 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: Sun, 02 Apr 2017 11:43:57 -0000 --f403045e33b2be6e1b054c2d8e07 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Just saying that we can talk in terms of weight alone after segwit. 8 mb weight is much more clear than 2 mb size to me. 2 mb size seems to obfuscate the actual new limit with the proposed hf, which simply 8 mb weight. On 2 Apr 2017 12:03 pm, "Natanael" wrote: > My point, if you missed it, is that there's a mathematical equivalence > between using two limits (and calculating the ratio) vs using one limit and > a ratio. The output is fully identical. The only difference is the order of > operations. Saying there's no blocksize limit with this is pretty > meaningless, because you're just saying you're using an abstraction that > doesn't make the limit visible. > --f403045e33b2be6e1b054c2d8e07 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Just saying that we can talk in terms of weight alone aft= er segwit. 8 mb weight is much more clear than 2 mb size to me. 2 mb size s= eems to obfuscate the actual new limit with the proposed hf, which simply 8= mb weight.

= On 2 Apr 2017 12:03 pm, "Natanael" <natanael.l@gmail.com> wrote:
<= blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px= #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
My point, if you missed it,= is that there's a mathematical equivalence between using two limits (a= nd calculating the ratio) vs using one limit and a ratio. The output is ful= ly identical. The only difference is the order of operations. Saying there&= #39;s no blocksize limit with this is pretty meaningless, because you'r= e just saying you're using an abstraction that doesn't make the lim= it visible.=C2=A0
--f403045e33b2be6e1b054c2d8e07--