MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: nbvfour@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <20151219174309.GB30640@muck>
References: <b19eb676c18ba451605cb02159541dd9@xbt.hk>
	<20151219174309.GB30640@muck>
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 2015 19:37:26 -0800
Message-ID: <CAAcC9yvBQj=UtbcmnSpMvmwaaRd1ftfg2VLq3JuU2wmp9Vah=Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Chris Priest <cp368202@ohiou.edu>
To: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Segregated witness softfork with moderate
 adoption has very small block size effect
Precedence: list

By that same logic, any wallet that implemented P2SH is also voting
for an increased block size, since P2SH results in smaller
transactions, in the same way SW results in smaller transactions.

On 12/19/15, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 11:49:25AM -0500, jl2012 via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>> I have done some calculation for the effect of a SW softfork on the
>> actual total block size.
>
> Note how the fact that segwit needs client-side adoption to enable an
> actual blocksize increase can be a good thing: it's a clear sign that
> the ecosystem as a whole has opted-into a blocksize increase.
>
> Not as good as a direct proof-of-stake vote, and somewhat coercive as a
> vote as you pay lower fees, but it's an interesting side-effect.
>
> --
> 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
> 00000000000000000188b6321da7feae60d74c7b0becbdab3b1a0bd57f10947d
>