Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 79AC8CF0 for ; Mon, 8 Feb 2016 22:36:58 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-ob0-f174.google.com (mail-ob0-f174.google.com [209.85.214.174]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EBEE0138 for ; Mon, 8 Feb 2016 22:36:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ob0-f174.google.com with SMTP id ba1so170423016obb.3 for ; Mon, 08 Feb 2016 14:36:57 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=bitcartel-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=6nHSLUHbxkpE8WpHdgXv0zYHBylG9s7Xmiq+0yi89jk=; b=UmTJn5P636vpWfHHDL/3vaePhHLf03v0IS+aAIkdSHC79cYJVqJ3K4KYNBRmHJau4N NDi7VE8ejpPV2wIAXXij2ups6XO94U7IcdjKYAJn3/QqI7ZKVGNrTOn0nbS7gZRWRNbD 7e5K+CL6TRc6jjtHGOdKZs6fmazhjBdKoTNdVG9EFjEVSYtHViXYkijADEjKMuVi37Bu HDkO0FZ3gzY5oiRVpcBnYUE8lC0CXnyjdedlAnj00q822aSNRG4EMvlHIt5/osNuREu+ tjm3XTs/hF926+kepGq8MlFzb0mwnJCSNrLA6FEKcEyV58hgu4uAoRxevi/5a5pZ6iTn Haiw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=6nHSLUHbxkpE8WpHdgXv0zYHBylG9s7Xmiq+0yi89jk=; b=PFGlk2ZpmOz11HsowwDgSmeHMWXdODm8Z8A2hwhsbAvuWxNlJ2pFdgSsuKrT4w6deU BPGUiUt217oZWCANymHFFK/Q9V6aulsgz0vI96MXFeYzzDCww/Jj8e8vKWax1DtMpe3b EsjR9i3e0vnaavtLf9B1IkHFDNDP2++nkt+wmjcaEtm/acIvYHmnAYBDWDbomBcG7rin Mn0ILO3rKV815QSjA/gvjRfiTy+ghU1Oj+nZZdbNiy+LuVJkLlKgZj3PEFILwcB5CnA6 e9JkrB4rq+TSCLaHlxv5JjAaMl5WK6n9qr6F1csKONwuU4sedyXHecn79HKyneIwdsN2 QNXA== X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YOSrsozb3l/xH+I90+7VkknFbwTpadMvYpIN8KRqjW6DqBNre8y2yU8SUAGgkE9TdA== X-Received: by 10.182.119.194 with SMTP id kw2mr27352261obb.77.1454971017273; Mon, 08 Feb 2016 14:36:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.10] (173-11-70-186-SFBA.hfc.comcastbusiness.net. [173.11.70.186]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id o8sm18583592obm.28.2016.02.08.14.36.50 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 08 Feb 2016 14:36:51 -0800 (PST) To: Matt Corallo , Bitcoin Dev References: <56B8EBF8.4050602@mattcorallo.com> From: Simon Liu Message-ID: <56B9187F.3040104@bitcartel.com> Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2016 14:36:47 -0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <56B8EBF8.4050602@mattcorallo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,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 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] On Hardforks in the Context of SegWit X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Feb 2016 22:36:58 -0000 > 1) The segregated witness discount is changed from 75% to 50%. The block > size limit (ie transactions + witness/2) is set to 1.5MB. This gives a > maximum block size of 3MB and a "network-upgraded" block size of roughly > 2.1MB. This still significantly discounts script data which is kept out > of the UTXO set, while keeping the maximum-sized block limited. What is the rationale for offering a discount? Is there an economic basis for setting the original discount at 75% instead of some other number? If it's okay to arbitrarily reduce the discount by 1/3, what are the actual boundary limits: 50% - 75% ? 40% - 80% ? --Simon