📅 Original date posted:2017-05-09
📝 Original message:> On 9 May 2017, at 21:49, Sergio Demian Lerner via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev at 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.
Johnson Lau [ARCHIVE] /
npub1fy…p2mv9
2023-06-07 18:00:57
in reply to nevent1q…kqg6
Author Public Key
npub1fyh6gqhg8zgyhhywkty047s64z2a7fjr307enrr3kqwtnk64plmsup2mv9Published at
2023-06-07 18:00:57Event JSON
{
"id": "5a0e303df14ecb3b5ec9962a6fba32b7a5da718ab55f99444b37bf2d1caeda7c",
"pubkey": "492fa402e838904bdc8eb2c8fafa1aa895df26438bfd998c71b01cb9db550ff7",
"created_at": 1686160857,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"4aacc31e765e9e31a3d8eb41d296ff5dc213462528e2e5335cec5ccb80e70465",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"e58d6c0586316cd37bb61f5375f07b6c29c8d35de9f7579628e414a4d7829cc2",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"78cadd65bb98ff2b50ae825fa100352d7f102e41ec5caad2e4d2e99e00df1394"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2017-05-09\n📝 Original message:\u003e On 9 May 2017, at 21:49, Sergio Demian Lerner via bitcoin-dev \u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e 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. \n\u003e 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.\n\u003e \n\nAs 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.",
"sig": "c3ec1595d27c089f11df030c615e4d4a114f1c990fed6f059842eeb4bb5de49b9156926934a36e9896bac1975cddca3abe3f012afadb47a413da29491aadaf54"
}