From: Santino Napolitano <santino.napolitano@yandex•com>
To: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd•org>, jl2012 <jl2012@xbt•hk>
Cc: "bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org"
<bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Segregated witness softfork with moderate adoption has very small block size effect
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 2015 21:37:06 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1709761450550226@web28g.yandex.ru> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20151219174309.GB30640@muck>
I disagree. I think all client-side adoption of SW reliably tells you is that those implementers saw value in it greater than the cost of implementation. It's possible what they valued was the malleability fix and didn't see the limited potential circumvention of MAX_BLOCK_SIZE material to their decision.
They could just as easily attach an OP_RETURN output to all of their transactions which pushes "big blocks please" which would more directly indicate their preference for larger blocks. You could also let hand-signed letters from the heads of businesses explicitly stating their desire speak for their intentions vs. any of this nonsense. Or the media interviews, forum comments, tweets, etc...
19.12.2015, 20:43, "Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev" <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>:
> 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
> ,
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-12-19 18:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-12-19 16:49 jl2012
2015-12-19 17:43 ` Peter Todd
2015-12-19 18:37 ` Santino Napolitano [this message]
2015-12-19 18:48 ` Peter Todd
2015-12-20 3:37 ` Chris Priest
2015-12-19 17:55 ` Justus Ranvier
2015-12-20 1:19 ` Douglas Roark
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=1709761450550226@web28g.yandex.ru \
--to=santino.napolitano@yandex$(echo .)com \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=jl2012@xbt$(echo .)hk \
--cc=pete@petertodd$(echo .)org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
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