{"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 Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 11:48 PM, Jonathan Toomim \u003cj at toom.im\u003e wrote:\n\u003e I understood that SegWit would allow about 1.75 MB of data in the average\n\u003e case while also allowing up to 4 MB of data in the worst case. This means\n\u003e that the mining and block distribution network would need a larger safety\n\u003e factor to deal with worst-case situations, right? If you want to make sure\n\nBy contrast it does not reduce the safety factor for the UTXO set at\nall; which most hold as a much greater concern in general; and that\nisn't something you can say for a block size increase.\n\nWith respect to witness safety factor; it's only needed in the case of\nstrategic or malicious behavior by miners-- both concerns which\nseveral people promoting large block size increases have not only\ndisregarded but portrayed as unrealistic fear-mongering. Are you\nconcerned about it?  In any case-- the other improvements described in\nmy post give me reason to believe that risks created by that\npossibility will be addressable."}