{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1f2nvlx49er5c7sqa43src6ssyp6snd4qwvtkwm5avc2l84cs84esecrwet","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1f2nvlx49er5c7sqa43src6ssyp6snd4qwvtkwm5avc2l84cs84esecrwet","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2015-12-08\n📝 Original message:On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 1:09 AM, Gavin Andresen \u003cgavinandresen at gmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003e Create a 1-megabyte transaction, with all of it's inputs spending\n\u003e segwitness-spending SIGHASH_ALL inputs.\n\u003e\n\u003e Because the segwitness inputs are smaller in the block, you can fit more of\n\u003e them into 1 megabyte. Each will hash very close to one megabyte of data.\n\nWitness size comes out of the 1MB at a factor of 0.25. It is not\npossible to make a block which has signatures with the full 1MB of\ndata under the sighash while also having signatures externally.  So\nevery byte moved into the witness and thus only counted as 25% comes\nout of the data being hashed and is hashed nInputs (*checksigs) less\ntimes.\n\n\u003e I think it is a huge mistake not to \"design for success\" (see\n\u003e http://gavinandresen.ninja/designing-for-success ).\n\nWe are designing for success; including the success of being able to\nadapt and cope with uncertainty-- which is the most critical kind of\nsuccess we can have in a world where nothing is and can be\npredictable.\n\n\u003e I think it is a huge mistake to pile on technical debt in consensus-critical\n\u003e code. I think we should be working harder to make things simpler, not more\n\u003e complex, whenever possible.\n\nI agree, but nothing I have advocated creates significant technical\ndebt. It is also a bad engineering practice to combine functional\nchanges (especially ones with poorly understood system wide\nconsequences and low user autonomy) with structural tidying.\n\n\u003e And I think there are pretty big self-inflicted current problems because\n\u003e worries about theoretical future problems have prevented us from coming to\n\u003e consensus on simple solutions.\n\nThat isn't my perspective. I believe we've suffered delays because of\na strong desire to be inclusive and hear out all ideas, and not\nforestall market adoption, even for ideas that eschewed pragmatism and\ntried to build for forever in a single step and which in our hear of\nhearts we knew were not the right path today. It's time to move past\nthat and get back on track with the progress can make and have been\nmaking, in terms of capacity as well as many other areas. I think that\nis designing for success."}