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
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
|
Return-Path: <sergio.d.lerner@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 784EF978
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 31 Mar 2017 21:50:47 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-qt0-f171.google.com (mail-qt0-f171.google.com
[209.85.216.171])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6518A108
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 31 Mar 2017 21:50:46 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-qt0-f171.google.com with SMTP id n21so76601983qta.1
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 31 Mar 2017 14:50:46 -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=hnUQeQr0/4U8TgpnwBfTYR9tkKPHDBXaZEhrzW0rTA8=;
b=oHJPizJusSNvP39c708KNFZo8SISIOooWNqW9fjta+S8i0A0HXSP3fstnq4v2bRn+V
uIwvJiPuDk09D+sNwk+r6732vXLAsmXs43WTWj0HFQRw1uTD9bEs1Yd+rZ06P7JLSh8P
d5BthRdKUs9olc5W/+D14a9GCaMLMyh9iYqiUcJb9LkNwIFfPB7c1AZy3BLsPapPwwbT
YZRNd7S0xBFWLhcLDzNggfC+NKfi61LfSArKQW/ld+8VV7BxwcyAHZxJV+/8MyFZb19Y
WKWzmB7cDyR1NyTfgBzZVQwWUwn151y06dTecjxYB/0BhPC0qApOmKajE5sKXwJA7h/8
LPCQ==
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=hnUQeQr0/4U8TgpnwBfTYR9tkKPHDBXaZEhrzW0rTA8=;
b=DyAVr0eZgdoiVLFuNXMhFj4m8L0mp1HmL3DqA34pw3zSInScfnbmSbUAcZ/OmsTs7Z
guz6fUv1kqBY8KvZSCRbmS0Qp4KwaTOnWhukLidDs8pmScdSvYqg3YKzfJFbVxk3HhTO
AZ9uWx4h0nrtLsNrb8z66QzawZNMdrSG57tsXeDyQ+WzLrxJtmnqaL0uwqBWUF1pOCEc
WjY3f8mVvDSJa/vy94IpJs2IlRor+Vv8V8SQH5rh0VY9Rvdgsfw/D6GHXpTIwg4vudid
CnS6Kqpjy8R1oyLfkkeje9GTztT+/vCArFamubLVGCdMQSfqQiVOHhVWKMiunoEAQQaa
0BKg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H2wyQSoE8KnrkpH/llZKoXOb1mqd0VsSYp/YI4k6XMfrKdMrNPSIzAGJ+OxyQZW0/OdCkyGNRtt6oHM3A==
X-Received: by 10.237.42.21 with SMTP id c21mr4964507qtd.11.1490997045604;
Fri, 31 Mar 2017 14:50:45 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.12.170.220 with HTTP; Fri, 31 Mar 2017 14:50:05 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <1OG7g5mI5q4lJn4f-aIWx9lRYYzKuhGB5pyBBMYz68_ngSfY6uHVduHYzCPKwIFQx3spKOf1gAG447AzPZEbXCCECHwziTse1ItmZgapvCQ=@protonmail.com>
References: <CAKzdR-oN6tGvGSb04_awCf=Jsf3wgKJN5xUhCr8G2D2W9YgJww@mail.gmail.com>
<1OG7g5mI5q4lJn4f-aIWx9lRYYzKuhGB5pyBBMYz68_ngSfY6uHVduHYzCPKwIFQx3spKOf1gAG447AzPZEbXCCECHwziTse1ItmZgapvCQ=@protonmail.com>
From: Sergio Demian Lerner <sergio.d.lerner@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2017 18:50:05 -0300
Message-ID: <CAKzdR-o74VT1Of5MmDO5OKyKKU9bQhb6TywkOt0gRAYyF=Ht_Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: praxeology_guy <praxeology_guy@protonmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11432a2a43be7a054c0dcd76
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 <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
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 <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: Fri, 31 Mar 2017 21:50:47 -0000
--001a11432a2a43be7a054c0dcd76
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Praxelogy_guy,
Yes I understand that segwit2mb represents a "potential" 4Mb block size
increase.
But Segwit does not immediately lead to 2 Mb blocks, but can only achieve
close to a 2Mb increase if all Bitcoin wallets switch to segwit, which will
take a couple of years.
Therefore I don't expect transactions per block to quadruple from one day
to another.
On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 6:22 PM, praxeology_guy <
praxeology_guy@protonmail.com> wrote:
> Sergio Demian Lerner: Please confirm that you understand that:
>
> The current SegWit being proposed comes bundled with an effective 2MB
> block size increase.
>
> Are you proposing the remove this bundled policy change, and then have a
> different BIP that increases the block size? Not quite clear if you
> understand what the current proposal is.
>
> Cheers,
> Praxeology
>
--001a11432a2a43be7a054c0dcd76
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr">Praxelogy_guy,<div>Yes I understand that segwit2mb represe=
nts a "potential" 4Mb block size increase.=C2=A0</div><div>But Se=
gwit does not immediately lead to 2 Mb blocks, but can only achieve close t=
o a 2Mb increase if all Bitcoin wallets switch to segwit, which will take a=
couple of years.</div><div>Therefore I don't expect transactions per b=
lock to quadruple from one day to another.</div><div><br></div></div><div c=
lass=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at=
6:22 PM, praxeology_guy <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:praxeology=
_guy@protonmail.com" target=3D"_blank">praxeology_guy@protonmail.com</a>>=
;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 =
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div>Sergio Demian Lerner=
: Please confirm that you understand that:<br></div><div><br></div><div> Th=
e current SegWit being proposed comes bundled with an effective 2MB block s=
ize increase.<br></div><div><br></div><div>Are you proposing the remove thi=
s bundled policy change, and then have a different BIP that increases the b=
lock size?=C2=A0 Not quite clear if you understand what the current proposa=
l is.<br></div><div><br></div><div>Cheers,<br></div><div>Praxeology<br></di=
v></blockquote></div><br></div>
--001a11432a2a43be7a054c0dcd76--
|
