Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DA0434A3 for ; Sun, 2 Apr 2017 10:03:34 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-yb0-f172.google.com (mail-yb0-f172.google.com [209.85.213.172]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9BBC8A5 for ; Sun, 2 Apr 2017 10:03:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-yb0-f172.google.com with SMTP id f204so24049682ybc.2 for ; Sun, 02 Apr 2017 03:03:33 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=FmcusJYaXfqpLlWW5JAP862Hq5ecW3kCL4ZF/QdJpgc=; b=tF0pge3Id0YN0B3r1FdcjfkXV8gfhXx86SeY/1+5KjMeBBeIG1rV368e2zS5T3T3yX sjUzwhSDmp3lGfVcmXXF+5CWqQB3mVSzfsKGqql/8wDPLCuebOi6B0fUzsHuOxlGxPqs yZ4071WG4V9AJtFF1deivsJ8haGGjSf0LCjQdn4slIeRRAjtF+nholVIck5L8Eg2fiGm z6UewfKkPlzzrL9Ls3lRKPRkfrUGHW0K0D5Ar0zkTvyWPp/EIDuq2yxobzMg8JYQLMMA VtABPmkW8PXzRWNf/53+V0SfHzhNhofiH/3HK/ZWmSGUXHyBIaS0VpWd+nq8Jomn04xk KRIw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=FmcusJYaXfqpLlWW5JAP862Hq5ecW3kCL4ZF/QdJpgc=; b=U2iOVLDOKOTlqgHEN9XB0s/GxAw21W/AVOdGOOTroiZq+GPeyJYW7AqAjjTU9mgI2L JCJk7ujWCf5ExnaCqM/zQXpWj3MW0gO+9KiXtEvDkZ4p6uBW5bFfzQu2ohNST2yYHbMH p0iHKm3isEkiXWR2w3fru6Ri/L0V9z1TatGA3280ZunwbeFh3xnm54TWWEoBfKv4+G7Q 7/k8V2deBMlBy9cGrf9ZQackzCbh36GyNSXe1Ky8S/8XCTe8EcxTq8kfWh8IzBL32V2+ w/NqvzPDRKwyekOzEFINJqnoWglhb7rFi2v22QK6HrBgIiDWwsXd/t6EhzllN9AaBoGI 92jA== X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H26Q9uNgV2KiCcnoWrRhQsH5f9Ohu+VInRgPxwwkppNQR2EqRycAds1YMc/0kYPxOwb4UucDXBgeVjdNA== X-Received: by 10.37.29.67 with SMTP id d64mr7534617ybd.17.1491127412717; Sun, 02 Apr 2017 03:03:32 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.37.123.135 with HTTP; Sun, 2 Apr 2017 03:03:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.37.123.135 with HTTP; Sun, 2 Apr 2017 03:03:31 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <1CF1FD5D-8D29-4783-823F-B3F588D5C5CE@mattcorallo.com> From: Natanael Date: Sun, 2 Apr 2017 12:03:31 +0200 Message-ID: To: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1140eed0c00042054c2c279e X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM autolearn=no version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Segwit2Mb - combined soft/hard fork - Request For Comments X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 02 Apr 2017 10:03:35 -0000 --001a1140eed0c00042054c2c279e Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 My point, if you missed it, is that there's a mathematical equivalence between using two limits (and calculating the ratio) vs using one limit and a ratio. The output is fully identical. The only difference is the order of operations. Saying there's no blocksize limit with this is pretty meaningless, because you're just saying you're using an abstraction that doesn't make the limit visible. --001a1140eed0c00042054c2c279e Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
My point, if you missed it, is that there's a mathema= tical equivalence between using two limits (and calculating the ratio) vs u= sing one limit and a ratio. The output is fully identical. The only differe= nce is the order of operations. Saying there's no blocksize limit with = this is pretty meaningless, because you're just saying you're using= an abstraction that doesn't make the limit visible.=C2=A0
--001a1140eed0c00042054c2c279e--