rich1.0npub1f2nvlx49er5c7sqa43src6ssyp6snd4qwvtkwm5avc2l84cs84esecrwethttps://nostr.ae/npub1f2nvlx49er5c7sqa43src6ssyp6snd4qwvtkwm5avc2l84cs84esecrwetnjumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2015-12-08 📝 Original message:On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 1:09 AM, Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen at gmail.com> wrote: > Create a 1-megabyte transaction, with all of it's inputs spending > segwitness-spending SIGHASH_ALL inputs. > > Because the segwitness inputs are smaller in the block, you can fit more of > them into 1 megabyte. Each will hash very close to one megabyte of data. Witness size comes out of the 1MB at a factor of 0.25. It is not possible to make a block which has signatures with the full 1MB of data under the sighash while also having signatures externally. So every byte moved into the witness and thus only counted as 25% comes out of the data being hashed and is hashed nInputs (*checksigs) less times. > I think it is a huge mistake not to "design for success" (see > http://gavinandresen.ninja/designing-for-success ). We are designing for success; including the success of being able to adapt and cope with uncertainty-- which is the most critical kind of success we can have in a world where nothing is and can be predictable. > I think it is a huge mistake to pile on technical debt in consensus-critical > code. I think we should be working harder to make things simpler, not more > complex, whenever possible. I agree, but nothing I have advocated creates significant technical debt. It is also a bad engineering practice to combine functional changes (especially ones with poorly understood system wide consequences and low user autonomy) with structural tidying. > And I think there are pretty big self-inflicted current problems because > worries about theoretical future problems have prevented us from coming to > consensus on simple solutions. That isn't my perspective. I believe we've suffered delays because of a strong desire to be inclusive and hear out all ideas, and not forestall market adoption, even for ideas that eschewed pragmatism and tried to build for forever in a single step and which in our hear of hearts we knew were not the right path today. It's time to move past that and get back on track with the progress can make and have been making, in terms of capacity as well as many other areas. I think that is designing for success.