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
|
Return-Path: <simon@bitcartel.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 79AC8CF0
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
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 <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 8 Feb 2016 22:36:57 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-ob0-f174.google.com with SMTP id ba1so170423016obb.3
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
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 <lf-lists@mattcorallo.com>,
Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
References: <56B8EBF8.4050602@mattcorallo.com>
From: Simon Liu <simon@bitcartel.com>
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 <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: 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
|
