MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: gmaxwell@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <5F73C59C-7939-4937-839D-CA93880CB21F@toom.im>
References: <CAAS2fgQyVs1fAEj+vqp8E2=FRnqsgs7VUKqALNBHNxRMDsHdVg@mail.gmail.com>
	<5F73C59C-7939-4937-839D-CA93880CB21F@toom.im>
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2015 00:23:27 +0000
Message-ID: <CAAS2fgQEfRCAtHVEbcuyDtcP7kf-HBPtow-qznRBNmeAURMe+w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gregory Maxwell <greg@xiph.org>
To: Jonathan Toomim <j@toom.im>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Capacity increases for the Bitcoin system.
Precedence: list

On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 11:48 PM, Jonathan Toomim <j@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.