rich1.0npub1pl6kcz00s7wgn6syh73dta0qm9sqpmtw4adv8rnm2w9fmynkw45sayj0hjhttps://nostr.ae/npub1pl6kcz00s7wgn6syh73dta0qm9sqpmtw4adv8rnm2w9fmynkw45sayj0hjnjumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2015-12-08 📝 Original message:On Dec 8, 2015, at 6:02 AM, Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > The particular proposal amounts to a 4MB blocksize increase at worst. I understood that SegWit would allow about 1.75 MB of data in the average case while also allowing up to 4 MB of data in the worst case. This means that the mining and block distribution network would need a larger safety factor to deal with worst-case situations, right? If you want to make sure that nothing goes wrong when everything is at its worst, you need to size your network pipes to handle 4 MB in a timely (DoS-resistant) fashion, but you'd normally only be able to use 1.75 MB of it. It seems to me that it would be safer to use a 3 MB limit, and that way you'd also be able to use 3 MB of actual transactions. As an accounting trick to bypass the 1 MB limit, SegWit sounds like it might make things less well accounted for. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20151209/a0eca647/attachment.html> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 496 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20151209/a0eca647/attachment.sig>