Peter Todd [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2015-12-19 📝 Original message:On Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at ...
📅 Original date posted:2015-12-19
📝 Original message:On Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 11:49:25AM -0500, jl2012 via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> I have done some calculation for the effect of a SW softfork on the
> actual total block size.
Note how the fact that segwit needs client-side adoption to enable an
actual blocksize increase can be a good thing: it's a clear sign that
the ecosystem as a whole has opted-into a blocksize increase.
Not as good as a direct proof-of-stake vote, and somewhat coercive as a
vote as you pay lower fees, but it's an interesting side-effect.
--
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
00000000000000000188b6321da7feae60d74c7b0becbdab3b1a0bd57f10947d
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 650 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20151219/4cda69f5/attachment.sig>;
📝 Original message:On Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 11:49:25AM -0500, jl2012 via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> I have done some calculation for the effect of a SW softfork on the
> actual total block size.
Note how the fact that segwit needs client-side adoption to enable an
actual blocksize increase can be a good thing: it's a clear sign that
the ecosystem as a whole has opted-into a blocksize increase.
Not as good as a direct proof-of-stake vote, and somewhat coercive as a
vote as you pay lower fees, but it's an interesting side-effect.
--
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
00000000000000000188b6321da7feae60d74c7b0becbdab3b1a0bd57f10947d
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 650 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20151219/4cda69f5/attachment.sig>;