📅 Original date posted:2015-12-08
📝 Original message:On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 11:48 PM, Jonathan Toomim <j at toom.im> wrote:
> I understood that SegWit would allow about 1.75 MB of data in the average
> case while also allowing up to 4 MB of data in the worst case. This means
> that the mining and block distribution network would need a larger safety
> factor to deal with worst-case situations, right? If you want to make sure
By contrast it does not reduce the safety factor for the UTXO set at
all; which most hold as a much greater concern in general; and that
isn't something you can say for a block size increase.
With respect to witness safety factor; it's only needed in the case of
strategic or malicious behavior by miners-- both concerns which
several people promoting large block size increases have not only
disregarded but portrayed as unrealistic fear-mongering. Are you
concerned about it? In any case-- the other improvements described in
my post give me reason to believe that risks created by that
possibility will be addressable.
Gregory Maxwell [ARCHIVE] /
npub1f2…crwet
2023-06-07 17:45:47
in reply to nevent1q…fx35
Author Public Key
npub1f2nvlx49er5c7sqa43src6ssyp6snd4qwvtkwm5avc2l84cs84esecrwetSeen on
wss://relay.noswhere.comPublished at
2023-06-07 17:45:47Event JSON
{
"id": "9163da7205562e5d6de9672c62a5e883a42cca77a951f750210b308d97481533",
"pubkey": "4aa6cf9aa5c8e98f401dac603c6a10207509b6a07317676e9d6615f3d7103d73",
"created_at": 1686159947,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"558b0da1f3869961bbef0556878e1dd6b9ae37e86128bc130bab17f5332c918d",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"6c9bc99b578c49c88e20395f9ac38bf1fa57f7544b00aaac0d54447867ba8b13",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"0ff56c09ef879c89ea04bfa2d5f5e0d96000ed6eaf5ac38e7b538a9d92767569"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-12-08\n📝 Original message:On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 11:48 PM, Jonathan Toomim \u003cj at toom.im\u003e wrote:\n\u003e I understood that SegWit would allow about 1.75 MB of data in the average\n\u003e case while also allowing up to 4 MB of data in the worst case. This means\n\u003e that the mining and block distribution network would need a larger safety\n\u003e factor to deal with worst-case situations, right? If you want to make sure\n\nBy contrast it does not reduce the safety factor for the UTXO set at\nall; which most hold as a much greater concern in general; and that\nisn't something you can say for a block size increase.\n\nWith respect to witness safety factor; it's only needed in the case of\nstrategic or malicious behavior by miners-- both concerns which\nseveral people promoting large block size increases have not only\ndisregarded but portrayed as unrealistic fear-mongering. Are you\nconcerned about it? In any case-- the other improvements described in\nmy post give me reason to believe that risks created by that\npossibility will be addressable.",
"sig": "0811403e7fde758c7ba66cac43c4651f7f8386186fef485fee5d8bb63f7b4407c0eadc142747595d984d1d76c7ccad7a448f5b59320ba06d273145af20fec127"
}