MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: gmaxwell@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <CADZtCSjsZ=_C+cFUXbAim=56QG4p0UdE4HEo9ZKJtNgEH_DqhQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <d43c6082-1b2c-c95b-5144-99ad0021ea6c@mattcorallo.com>
	<CALJw2w7+VUYtMtdTexW6iE3mc0DsS9DME_ynP8skg_+-bv_tPA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADabwBDG2_2syU0AnjbEfqTL=5ERRQkL6NOyVN7gAyJTAaf7UA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADZtCSjsZ=_C+cFUXbAim=56QG4p0UdE4HEo9ZKJtNgEH_DqhQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gregory Maxwell <greg@xiph.org>
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2018 17:52:29 +0000
Message-ID: <CAAS2fgQ5Mo0x91_-4JhcksToi4=emD=qMApQFw1Hn9tOcnrCVg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jim Posen <jim.posen@gmail.com>, 
	Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP 158 Flexibility and Filter Size
Precedence: list

On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 1:08 AM, Jim Posen via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> hesitant to make the complexity tradeoff for bandwidth savings due to a
> behavior that is actively discouraged.

As an important point of clarification here. If scripts are used to
identify inputs and outputs, then no use is required for that savings.
Each coin spent was created once, so in an absurd hypothetical you can
get a 2:1 change in bits set without any reuse at all.   I don't know
what portion of coins created are spent in the same 144 block
window...