{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1fyh6gqhg8zgyhhywkty047s64z2a7fjr307enrr3kqwtnk64plmsup2mv9","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1fyh6gqhg8zgyhhywkty047s64z2a7fjr307enrr3kqwtnk64plmsup2mv9","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2017-05-09\n📝 Original message:\u003e On 9 May 2017, at 21:49, Sergio Demian Lerner via bitcoin-dev \u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e So it seems the 75% discount has been chosen with the idea that in the future the current transaction pattern will shift towards multisigs. This is not a bad idea, as it's the only direction Bitcoin can scale without a HF. \n\u003e But it's a bad idea if we end up doing, for example, a 2X blocksize increase HF in the future. In that case it's much better to use a 50% witness discount, and do not make scaling risky by making the worse case block size 8 Mbytes, when it could have been 2*2.7=5.4 Mbytes.\n\u003e \n\nAs we could change any parameter in a hardfork, I don’t think this has any relation with the current BIP141 proposal. We could just use 75% in a softfork, and change that to a different value (or completely redefine the definition of weight) with a hardfork later."}