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 C3825480 for ; Tue, 9 May 2017 16:19:55 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-qt0-f177.google.com (mail-qt0-f177.google.com [209.85.216.177]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1CDD2F0 for ; Tue, 9 May 2017 16:19:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-qt0-f177.google.com with SMTP id t26so5235473qtg.0 for ; Tue, 09 May 2017 09:19:55 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=wh1/+9SZYkCyLhca63q3ycuF0Ya0rYI0RG5cGZaHAa8=; b=aJrl6m8YCqC3guGELRe4lG+PM27HzfyMOaStj6Ytx1UvYUQzkd469FtMiVxcb8mLhI bSvWmB8Pe/PKHJZAGb4Iba/RHmmZ9PzvsrDI7jrsJYnKCfm0St/59ecVR89xaBf+KgDx DHu3at49F4OlTgE3pnMjeHd65jitZeWurtvGC5MqxdPk9cy59umCsogv2IKQJ8XZ3mA+ F/DYxK0lv2cVn//6gyh8gcs3WF72Mm+zhmhNjE5UEDXDIs/nMPlVFRD8ArtijnmFyOh9 wEiGfKpLBTBHvv6UQEA2x54eW2Kt3KHEVhekaEbY9O/O/aFVwY+UKlCUbYSOdhSbuxgO a8+Q== 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=wh1/+9SZYkCyLhca63q3ycuF0Ya0rYI0RG5cGZaHAa8=; b=nloVeZ+2gtaXtoaNdFBWuhiRuBqiedo5exkICMeC22TLzBtuINuioLBuEi8krnZbih iYrf948JZoHweFSQ6mG1IZ06R19v6GWFzg+/NNwfAb7N2xbvn3swB8mzkol6ylf+fq2K P+jDB8kirPOE2oSWDXUtseZD7b+sbzzq+klYXLIIv/ZmIil01RvvBm4UdlBYNlXfZNqM mQ5jaO5x7Ba2JlxbI0+1MGOdXu5RPQJoBoQZbs5N3q0K9/l5gwrUo6exdpGPcUGSzMXS 1pW8GC8zi/GclROOu0rEFWEFEW2Ge7cEhpLVodeOEzJOZ+Z33dliErqmAQNS1UnClBbm 7RpQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AODbwcDkGnY6+JdD4uPf5+2pcZ9E79eXwzOjnCmUJZu5S4W0S4wf+/w4 +S1uf8+vNqlMak3DZdVEFn8ULIkB1A== X-Received: by 10.200.54.103 with SMTP id n36mr980441qtb.286.1494346794315; Tue, 09 May 2017 09:19:54 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.12.165.132 with HTTP; Tue, 9 May 2017 09:19:13 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <7B918396-5968-4908-83C8-0F77DA8DB037@xbt.hk> References: <7B918396-5968-4908-83C8-0F77DA8DB037@xbt.hk> From: Sergio Demian Lerner Date: Tue, 9 May 2017 13:19:13 -0300 Message-ID: To: Johnson Lau Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113a6592d8b69e054f19b92f X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM autolearn=no 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] Some real-world results about the current Segwit Discount 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: Tue, 09 May 2017 16:19:55 -0000 --001a113a6592d8b69e054f19b92f Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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 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=3D5.4 Mbytes. > > > > As we could change any parameter in a hardfork, I don=E2=80=99t think thi= s 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 th= e > definition of weight) with a hardfork later. > > > --001a113a6592d8b69e054f19b92f Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Thanks Johnson and Hampus for the clarifications.=C2=A0However, I would rather do the opposite: soft-fork to 50% now, and soft-f= ork again to 75% discount later if needed, because it doesn't affect th= e max transactions/second.=C2=A0

Segwit as it is today s= hould 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 blocksiz= e 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 b= lock size 8 Mbytes, when it could have been 2*2.7=3D5.4 Mbytes.
>

As we could change any parameter in a hardfork, I don=E2=80=99t thin= k 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 red= efine the definition of weight) with a hardfork later.



--001a113a6592d8b69e054f19b92f--