Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.2 \(3259\))
From: Johnson Lau <jl2012@xbt.hk>
In-Reply-To: <CAKzdR-on-w9EF+2hLjchdyHB1gj7fi4QnybA=J4Cz7yyN3KKNA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 9 May 2017 23:45:04 +0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <7B918396-5968-4908-83C8-0F77DA8DB037@xbt.hk>
References: <CAKzdR-qojNn8OtUTPbxa0JauK9nmo2ZGm4ihKuyzsz_FAgokDw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAMBsKS_j7Lso6fHoMPkrQ7UFwKfxOERAAqL=aUF83O4CqL+iFg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAKzdR-on-w9EF+2hLjchdyHB1gj7fi4QnybA=J4Cz7yyN3KKNA@mail.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
Precedence: list


> On 9 May 2017, at 21:49, Sergio Demian Lerner via bitcoin-dev =
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>=20
>=20
> 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.=20
> 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=3D5.4 Mbytes.
>=20

As we could change any parameter in a hardfork, I don=E2=80=99t 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.