<oembed><type>rich</type><version>1.0</version><author_name>npub1fyh6gqhg8zgyhhywkty047s64z2a7fjr307enrr3kqwtnk64plmsup2mv9</author_name><author_url>https://nostr.ae/npub1fyh6gqhg8zgyhhywkty047s64z2a7fjr307enrr3kqwtnk64plmsup2mv9</author_url><provider_name>njump</provider_name><provider_url>https://nostr.ae</provider_url><html>📅 Original date posted:2017-05-09&#xA;📝 Original message:&gt; On 9 May 2017, at 21:49, Sergio Demian Lerner via bitcoin-dev &lt;bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org&gt; wrote:&#xA;&gt; &#xA;&gt; &#xA;&gt; 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&#39;s the only direction Bitcoin can scale without a HF. &#xA;&gt; But it&#39;s a bad idea if we end up doing, for example, a 2X blocksize increase HF in the future. In that case it&#39;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.&#xA;&gt; &#xA;&#xA;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.</html></oembed>