{"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:No, changing from 50% to 75% is a hardfork. (75 -\u003e 50 is a softfork). Unless you make it pre-scheduled, or leave a special “backdoor” softfork to change the discount.\n\nAnd that would certainly reduce the max tx/s with 50% discount, also reduce the incentive to spend witness UTXO. \n\n\u003e On 10 May 2017, at 00:19, Sergio Demian Lerner \u003csergio.d.lerner at gmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \n\u003e Thanks Johnson and Hampus for the clarifications. \n\u003e However, I would rather do the opposite: soft-fork to 50% now, and soft-fork again to 75% discount later if needed, because it doesn't affect the max transactions/second. \n\u003e \n\u003e Segwit as it is today should be activated. However if it is not before November, then for the next Segwit attempt I would choose a more conservative 50% discount.\n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 12:45 PM, Johnson Lau \u003cjl2012 at xbt.hk \u003cmailto:jl2012 at xbt.hk\u003e\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \n\u003e \u003e On 9 May 2017, at 21:49, Sergio Demian Lerner via bitcoin-dev \u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org \u003cmailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \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 \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 \u003e\n\u003e \n\u003e As 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.\n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e \n\n\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20170510/7cb9f0fc/attachment.html\u003e"}