{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub10r9d6edmnrljk59wsf06zqp494l3qtjpa3w245hy6t5euqxlzw2qdkgk2d","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub10r9d6edmnrljk59wsf06zqp494l3qtjpa3w245hy6t5euqxlzw2qdkgk2d","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2017-05-09\n📝 Original message:Doing a second soft-fork from 50% to 75% sounds more difficult since\nthat's going from a more restrictive ruleset to less restrictive, you\nmight be able to hack around it but it wouldn't be a fully backwards\ncompatible change like going from 75% to 50% would be. 50% vs 75% does\naffect max transactions/second in practice, the exact amount depends\non the real world usage of course though.\n\nOn Tue, May 9, 2017 at 11:19 AM, Sergio Demian Lerner via bitcoin-dev\n\u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\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\n\u003e again to 75% discount later if needed, because it doesn't affect the max\n\u003e transactions/second.\n\u003e\n\u003e Segwit as it is today should be activated. However if it is not before\n\u003e November, then for the next Segwit attempt I would choose a more\n\u003e 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\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e \u003e On 9 May 2017, at 21:49, Sergio Demian Lerner via bitcoin-dev\n\u003e\u003e \u003e \u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\u003e \u003e\n\u003e\u003e \u003e\n\u003e\u003e \u003e So it seems the 75% discount has been chosen with the idea that in the\n\u003e\u003e \u003e future the current transaction pattern will shift towards multisigs. This is\n\u003e\u003e \u003e not a bad idea, as it's the only direction Bitcoin can scale without a HF.\n\u003e\u003e \u003e But it's a bad idea if we end up doing, for example, a 2X blocksize\n\u003e\u003e \u003e increase HF in the future. In that case it's much better to use a 50%\n\u003e\u003e \u003e witness discount, and do not make scaling risky by making the worse case\n\u003e\u003e \u003e block size 8 Mbytes, when it could have been 2*2.7=5.4 Mbytes.\n\u003e\u003e \u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e As we could change any parameter in a hardfork, I don’t think this has any\n\u003e\u003e relation with the current BIP141 proposal. We could just use 75% in a\n\u003e\u003e softfork, and change that to a different value (or completely redefine the\n\u003e\u003e definition of weight) with a hardfork later.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e"}