I just read on a Reddit post by a SegWit opposer that it increases the badwitdth and storage needs to 400% of current needs, while allowing for 160% of the number number of transactions. Is that true? Is 240% more data the price we pay for preventing non-updated nodes from forking the network?
If that is true, isn't that worse in the long term (security and centralization-wise) than simply hardforking into a better transaction format (given appropriate miner consensus)? Maybe to BIP-134, maybe to something else fixing current transaction issues (malleability, non-linear verification cost, verbosity, etc)? -- Lucas Clemente Vella lve...@gmail.com
_______________________________________________ bitcoin-discuss mailing list bitcoin-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-discuss
