public inbox for bitcoindev@googlegroups.com
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: James Hilliard <james.hilliard1@gmail.com>
To: Sergio Demian Lerner <sergio.d.lerner@gmail.com>
Cc: bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Some real-world results about the current Segwit Discount
Date: Tue, 9 May 2017 11:27:59 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CADvTj4pSXxCirfFf_WU9x_TUmk7DmThM4a6yybOgq96hecc=Xg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAKzdR-rKQaiKF18j44HjxuHY5pcmPwsce5ab-+zGRDnxjhBQdw@mail.gmail.com>

Doing a second soft-fork from 50% to 75% sounds more difficult since
that's going from a more restrictive ruleset to less restrictive, you
might be able to hack around it but it wouldn't be a fully backwards
compatible change like going from 75% to 50% would be. 50% vs 75% does
affect max transactions/second in practice, the exact amount depends
on the real world usage of course though.

On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 11:19 AM, Sergio Demian Lerner via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Thanks Johnson and Hampus for the clarifications.
> However, I would rather do the opposite: soft-fork to 50% now, and soft-fork
> again to 75% discount later if needed, because it doesn't affect the max
> transactions/second.
>
> Segwit as it is today should be activated. However if it is not before
> November, then for the next Segwit attempt I would choose a more
> conservative 50% discount.
>
>
>
> On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 12:45 PM, Johnson Lau <jl2012@xbt.hk> wrote:
>>
>>
>> > On 9 May 2017, at 21:49, Sergio Demian Lerner via bitcoin-dev
>> > <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > So it seems the 75% discount has been chosen with the idea that in the
>> > future the current transaction pattern will shift towards multisigs. This is
>> > not a bad idea, as it's the only direction Bitcoin can scale without a HF.
>> > But it's a bad idea if we end up doing, for example, a 2X blocksize
>> > increase HF in the future. In that case it's much better to use a 50%
>> > witness discount, and do not make scaling risky by making the worse case
>> > block size 8 Mbytes, when it could have been 2*2.7=5.4 Mbytes.
>> >
>>
>> As we could change any parameter in a hardfork, I don’t think this has any
>> relation with the current BIP141 proposal. We could just use 75% in a
>> softfork, and change that to a different value (or completely redefine the
>> definition of weight) with a hardfork later.
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>


  parent reply	other threads:[~2017-05-09 16:28 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-05-08 22:42 [bitcoin-dev] Some real-world results about the current Segwit Discount Sergio Demian Lerner
2017-05-08 23:47 ` Alphonse Pace
2017-05-09 13:49   ` Sergio Demian Lerner
2017-05-09 14:33     ` James Hilliard
2017-05-09 15:45     ` Johnson Lau
2017-05-09 16:19       ` Sergio Demian Lerner
2017-05-09 16:27         ` Johnson Lau
2017-05-09 16:27         ` James Hilliard [this message]
2017-05-09 18:15     ` Matt Corallo
2017-05-09 18:58       ` Sergio Demian Lerner
2017-05-09 19:15         ` Sergio Demian Lerner
2017-05-09 19:30           ` Gregory Maxwell
2017-05-09 19:42             ` Matt Corallo
2017-05-09 20:13               ` Gregory Maxwell
2017-05-09 20:58                 ` Sergio Demian Lerner
2017-05-10  5:37                   ` Jorge Timón
2017-05-10 14:05                   ` Matt Corallo
2017-05-10 15:25                     ` Sergio Demian Lerner
2017-05-10 16:39                       ` Matt Corallo
2017-05-10 19:40                         ` Sergio Demian Lerner
2017-05-08 23:56 ` Gregory Maxwell

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to='CADvTj4pSXxCirfFf_WU9x_TUmk7DmThM4a6yybOgq96hecc=Xg@mail.gmail.com' \
    --to=james.hilliard1@gmail.com \
    --cc=bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=sergio.d.lerner@gmail.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox