1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
|
Return-Path: <sickpig@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 91433EB6
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 17 Dec 2015 15:51:41 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-lb0-f170.google.com (mail-lb0-f170.google.com
[209.85.217.170])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C5D73122
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 17 Dec 2015 15:51:40 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-lb0-f170.google.com with SMTP id kw15so47953895lbb.0
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 17 Dec 2015 07:51:40 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to
:cc:content-type;
bh=P0uW6V+lYowy4ix7VAyC5toFIgeB3+gx+/jwWYGDFOo=;
b=U6UlnAhvv9FGh9glHLVDxNYexXW+GxMcURVGOQ9OrFd0MbPrC3G4tH/5B9W6PlpK2V
VU795dCkzucPvZ/NL14gLn9nIoWem2A2QbN4TK0wKFkqgv7/3wYwC4yhBiqLcwvqH5b6
lltFfvjISkGAGuQy6ySyfBDSFETKMO62DFv6CjbhoteWbsPa8APn/v64k3F2iodNVZOp
SJy1aM8dGZWmAXWoUAWDUxxwsnnzNrisC0GArL4ti6gE5GXeSQHiWnLmedvTO54Mdrnb
mRtEk6Xi/4DcOVAtJ349k0bxBmMcpg8U18D5kqi1rQhCypBZhZw+sHC4wgCuEhd6gksR
6vvg==
X-Received: by 10.112.160.202 with SMTP id xm10mr18841818lbb.22.1450367499003;
Thu, 17 Dec 2015 07:51:39 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.25.89.139 with HTTP; Thu, 17 Dec 2015 07:51:19 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CABm2gDp+UFua=ZqzDFhZ7F6MeLbc_fBv13WYcpttSP1Lyy1ngg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADm_WcYWh5EnBCzQQVc04sf-0seh2zrmc+5dH8Z-Bo78jhPnfA@mail.gmail.com>
<49257841-66C8-4EF7-980B-73DC604CA591@mattcorallo.com>
<9869fe48a4fc53fc355a35cead73fca2@xbt.hk>
<CAK_HAC-QmFiQGePpPH7n7qV-A4mkQdsWmgwA__mc1GBkTa6oFA@mail.gmail.com>
<CABm2gDp+UFua=ZqzDFhZ7F6MeLbc_fBv13WYcpttSP1Lyy1ngg@mail.gmail.com>
From: "sickpig@gmail.com" <sickpig@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 16:51:19 +0100
Message-ID: <CA+c4Zow4qnhQZFgaY-hOJA4LUtuM_rb1xRbMAOD7gW3i2KzB9A@mail.gmail.com>
To: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c261ac926d4e052719ff4e
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW
autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 15:53:46 +0000
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Segregated Witness in the context of Scaling
Bitcoin
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 15:51:41 -0000
--001a11c261ac926d4e052719ff4e
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 2:09 PM, Jorge Tim=C3=B3n <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> Unless I'm missing something, 2 mb x4 =3D 8mb, so bip102 + SW is already
> equivalent to the 2-4-8 "compromise" proposal (which by the way I never
> liked, because I don't think anybody should be in a position to
> "compromise" anything and because I don't see how "let's avoid an
> unavoidable economic change for a little bit longer" arguments can
> reasoably claim that "we need to kick the can down the road exactly 3 mor=
e
> times" or whatever is the reasoning behind it).
>
isn't SegWit gain ~75%? hence 2mb x 1.75 =3D 3.5.
4x is theoric gain you get in case of 2-2 multisig txs.
am I missign something obvious?
--001a11c261ac926d4e052719ff4e
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><br><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quo=
te">On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 2:09 PM, Jorge Tim=C3=B3n <span dir=3D"ltr"><=
;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank"=
>bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote=
class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc soli=
d;padding-left:1ex"><br><p dir=3D"ltr">Unless I'm missing something, 2 =
mb x4 =3D 8mb, so bip102 + SW is already equivalent to the 2-4-8 "comp=
romise" proposal (which by the way I never liked, because I don't =
think anybody should be in a position to "compromise" anything an=
d because I don't see how "let's avoid an unavoidable economic=
change for a little bit longer" arguments can reasoably claim that &q=
uot;we need to kick the can down the road exactly 3 more times" or wha=
tever is the reasoning behind it).</p></blockquote><div><br></div><div>isn&=
#39;t SegWit gain ~75%? hence 2mb x 1.75 =3D 3.5. <br><br></div><div>4x is =
theoric gain you get in case of 2-2 multisig txs. <br><br></div><div>am I m=
issign something obvious? <br></div><div>=C2=A0<br></div></div><br></div></=
div>
--001a11c261ac926d4e052719ff4e--
|
