Sergio,
I'm not sure what the data you present has to do with the discount. A 75%
discount prevents witness spam precisely because it is 75%, nothing more.
The current usage simply gives a guideline on how much capacity is gained
through a particular discount. With the data you show, it would
A WTXID commitment would (likely) need to be a UASF.
On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 11:17 AM, Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> The "UASF movement" seems a bit premature to me - I doubt UASF will be
> necessary if a WTXID commitment is tried first. I
What meeting are you referring to? Who were the participants?
Removing the limit but relying on the p2p protocol is not really a true
32MiB limit, but a limit of whatever transport methods provide. This can
lead to differing consensus if alternative layers for relaying are used.
What you seem
As a user, I would far prefer a split over any kind of mandatory change
that would drastically harm the ecosystem. Many users feel the same way.
Level 3 is a pure attack on users who do not conform to your beliefs.
Please do not put words in people's mouths claiming they wouldn't prefer a
split
This unnecessarily complicates transaction selection for miners by
introducing a second (and possibly third if I understand your proposal
correctly) dimension to try to optimize.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bin_packing_problem
Segwit already solves this exact issue by replacing block
I fail to see how any non-mining user can attack a miner. The worst they
can do is refuse to buy their coinbase transaction. Do you believe that
users are obligated to buy coins from miners? If not, then all miners are
voluntarily choosing a set of rules to enforce and a set of policy to mine.
