Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
Content-Type: multipart/signed;
	boundary="Apple-Mail=_997F15C3-CDF7-4694-A002-F54D5AEF78E4";
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
From: Jonathan Toomim <j@toom.im>
In-Reply-To: <CAAS2fgQyVs1fAEj+vqp8E2=FRnqsgs7VUKqALNBHNxRMDsHdVg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2015 07:48:58 +0800
Message-Id: <5F73C59C-7939-4937-839D-CA93880CB21F@toom.im>
References: <CAAS2fgQyVs1fAEj+vqp8E2=FRnqsgs7VUKqALNBHNxRMDsHdVg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Gregory Maxwell <greg@xiph.org>
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Capacity increases for the Bitcoin system.
Precedence: list


--Apple-Mail=_997F15C3-CDF7-4694-A002-F54D5AEF78E4
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="Apple-Mail=_6D85F9D4-3680-461F-8CA4-ED05B6159553"


--Apple-Mail=_6D85F9D4-3680-461F-8CA4-ED05B6159553
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=us-ascii

On Dec 8, 2015, at 6:02 AM, Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev =
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> The particular proposal amounts to a 4MB blocksize increase at worst.

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 that nothing goes wrong when everything is at its =
worst, you need to size your network pipes to handle 4 MB in a timely =
(DoS-resistant) fashion, but you'd normally only be able to use 1.75 MB =
of it. It seems to me that it would be safer to use a 3 MB limit, and =
that way you'd also be able to use 3 MB of actual transactions.

As an accounting trick to bypass the 1 MB limit, SegWit sounds like it =
might make things less well accounted for.


--Apple-Mail=_6D85F9D4-3680-461F-8CA4-ED05B6159553
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset=us-ascii

<html><head><meta http-equiv=3D"Content-Type" content=3D"text/html =
charset=3Dus-ascii"></head><body style=3D"word-wrap: break-word; =
-webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: =
after-white-space;"><div>On Dec 8, 2015, at 6:02 AM, Gregory Maxwell via =
bitcoin-dev &lt;<a =
href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.li=
nuxfoundation.org</a>&gt; wrote:</div><div><br =
class=3D"Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type=3D"cite"><span =
style=3D"font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; =
font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; =
line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; =
text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: =
0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; float: none; display: inline =
!important;">The particular proposal amounts to a 4MB blocksize increase =
at worst. </span></blockquote><div><br></div><div><div>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 that =
nothing goes wrong when everything is at its worst, you need to size =
your network pipes to handle 4 MB in a timely (DoS-resistant) fashion, =
but you'd normally only be able to use 1.75 MB of it. It seems to me =
that it would be safer to use a 3 MB limit, and that way you'd also be =
able to use 3 MB of actual transactions.</div><div><br></div><div>As an =
accounting trick to bypass the 1 MB limit, SegWit sounds like it might =
make things less well accounted =
for.</div><div><br></div></div></div></body></html>=

--Apple-Mail=_6D85F9D4-3680-461F-8CA4-ED05B6159553--

--Apple-Mail=_997F15C3-CDF7-4694-A002-F54D5AEF78E4
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename=signature.asc
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature;
	name=signature.asc
Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org

iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJWZ2xqAAoJEIEuMk4MG0P1fd8IAI94wRxV7GY6DSnHdOvmMcDo
Q4yy0OZauQrannfZLcHsc9P0YHgRHpSwdJaeO/1rUI68oZK67KbZXowpcnVaPC6X
H/qIICwFDK9i/ukrJnHydoyy2KFNn+ZJ1mMjdrzI+9yWU1zBb09QVBVFyo7wQdA2
TIEgVeVKFV39wuR4Prj/r1RFKx0iOA4SjiFN3BFbsdn1THwTMdpq7D0wlastAswO
jBozMW4nhL5u0p1Lhm2xn26PZzFsnETNvCFr/mNY6HW1JGbi4vBZHab4C43au/i4
26GJX1utQHEFjLxtCB3Cv1s+6buCTn7oXecm49Sxm+42iKAPdyipN5yQerjsQLg=
=FQcE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--Apple-Mail=_997F15C3-CDF7-4694-A002-F54D5AEF78E4--