rich1.0npub1fyh6gqhg8zgyhhywkty047s64z2a7fjr307enrr3kqwtnk64plmsup2mv9https://nostr.ae/npub1fyh6gqhg8zgyhhywkty047s64z2a7fjr307enrr3kqwtnk64plmsup2mv9njumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2017-05-09 📝 Original message:No, changing from 50% to 75% is a hardfork. (75 -> 50 is a softfork). Unless you make it pre-scheduled, or leave a special “backdoor” softfork to change the discount. And that would certainly reduce the max tx/s with 50% discount, also reduce the incentive to spend witness UTXO. > On 10 May 2017, at 00:19, Sergio Demian Lerner <sergio.d.lerner at gmail.com> wrote: > > Thanks Johnson and Hampus for the clarifications. > 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. > > 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. > > > > On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 12:45 PM, Johnson Lau <jl2012 at xbt.hk <mailto:jl2012 at xbt.hk>> wrote: > > > On 9 May 2017, at 21:49, Sergio Demian Lerner via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org <mailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>> wrote: > > > > > > 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. > > 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. > > > > 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. > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20170510/7cb9f0fc/attachment.html>