📅 Original date posted:2015-12-08
📝 Original message:On Dec 8, 2015, at 6:02 AM, Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> The particular proposal amounts to a 4MB blocksize increase at worst.
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 that nothing goes wrong when everything is at its worst, you need to size your network pipes to handle 4 MB in a timely (DoS-resistant) fashion, but you'd normally only be able to use 1.75 MB of it. It seems to me that it would be safer to use a 3 MB limit, and that way you'd also be able to use 3 MB of actual transactions.
As an accounting trick to bypass the 1 MB limit, SegWit sounds like it might make things less well accounted for.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20151209/a0eca647/attachment.html>;
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 496 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20151209/a0eca647/attachment.sig>;
Jonathan Toomim [ARCHIVE] /
npub1pl…yj0hj
2023-06-07 17:45:47
in reply to nevent1q…nxa5
Author Public Key
npub1pl6kcz00s7wgn6syh73dta0qm9sqpmtw4adv8rnm2w9fmynkw45sayj0hjPublished at
2023-06-07 17:45:47Event JSON
{
"id": "6c9bc99b578c49c88e20395f9ac38bf1fa57f7544b00aaac0d54447867ba8b13",
"pubkey": "0ff56c09ef879c89ea04bfa2d5f5e0d96000ed6eaf5ac38e7b538a9d92767569",
"created_at": 1686159947,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"558b0da1f3869961bbef0556878e1dd6b9ae37e86128bc130bab17f5332c918d",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"d75559ab9dd218a8a2ff9c14a0498f310c46f4c7738e86a40f9e959ba33f99c9",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"94ba46cdbb14c3443fcc2e1278b41ad6bc36a2d595149d6940652dab7e162523"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-12-08\n📝 Original message:On Dec 8, 2015, at 6:02 AM, Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev \u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e The particular proposal amounts to a 4MB blocksize increase at worst.\n\nI 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 that nothing goes wrong when everything is at its worst, you need to size your network pipes to handle 4 MB in a timely (DoS-resistant) fashion, but you'd normally only be able to use 1.75 MB of it. It seems to me that it would be safer to use a 3 MB limit, and that way you'd also be able to use 3 MB of actual transactions.\n\nAs an accounting trick to bypass the 1 MB limit, SegWit sounds like it might make things less well accounted for.\n\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20151209/a0eca647/attachment.html\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nA non-text attachment was scrubbed...\nName: signature.asc\nType: application/pgp-signature\nSize: 496 bytes\nDesc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20151209/a0eca647/attachment.sig\u003e",
"sig": "b1cc0175576333241be65a5242b2d060db79a40d9b07c60d81f7f8518748fbf38dfb534b11d4abdc565a474cfb8b1162e9e6a1474b4385ba42c3cac971cb06ce"
}