Re: [bitcoin-dev] Segregated Witness in the context of Scaling Bitcoin

[Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1145 bytes --]

On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 9:44 PM, Eric Lombrozo <elombrozo@gmail.com> wrote:

> At least SW *is* a scaling solution (albeit most of the important benefits
> are long term). The issue of fee events has nothing to do with scaling - it
> has to do with economics...specifically whether we should be subsidizing
> transactions, who should pay the bill for it, etc. My own personal opinion
> is that increasing validation costs works against adoption, not for
> it...even if it artificially keeps fees low - and we'll have to deal with a
> fee event sooner or later anyhow. You may disagree with my opinion, but
> please, let's stop confounding the economic issues with actual scaling.
>

At least on my part, the title of the 1st email was "It's economics & ..."
and focused on (a) economics and (b) transition issues.  There was no
confounding.  There was a list of real problems and risks taken when 1M is
not lifted in the short term.

Thus "SW is orthogonal" in these emails, because these problems remain
regardless of SW or no, as the 1st email outlined.

The 2nd email addresses the specific assertion of "no 1M hard fork needed,
because SW."

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1579 bytes --]