Re: [bitcoin-dev] Some real-world results about the current Segwit Discount

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
>