Why Blockstream is against "contentious" hard forks - Control

[rizzlarolla]

Compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges, the closest your quoted post provides to such a comparison is as follows:
15400tx (blocksize 3.5 mb) @ vs 15840tx (segwit w/ 2mb)
It's not accurate since 3.5 mb < 2mb segwit, but none of the other numbers line up at all.

But " I propose we work immediately towards the segwit 4MB block soft-fork" (Gmax)
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-December/011865.html

segwit is 4mb.

[franky1]

at 226byte tx 3mb block without segwit 13200tx (15400tx if blocks 3.5mb)

It's not accurate since 3.5 mb < 2mb segwit, but none of the other numbers line up at all.

yea i noticed that. so edited to be easier to comprehend

[franky1]

Compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges, the closest your quoted post provides to such a comparison is as follows:
15400tx (blocksize 3.5 mb) @ vs 15840tx (segwit w/ 2mb)
It's not accurate since 3.5 mb < 2mb segwit, but none of the other numbers line up at all.

But " I propose we work immediately towards the segwit 4MB block soft-fork" (Gmax)
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-December/011865.html

segwit is 4mb.

that was when Gmaxwell thought the plan was 2mb blocklimit AND segwit.
in the same paragraph he said

If widely used this proposal gives a 2x capacity increase

which is where he got the 4mb number from. but more recently its suggested to be only 1.8x capacity... hense new numbers are 3.6mb(real data) for 2mb block limit,
also when using the 1.8x in combination with the average tx size brings out the 7200tx a block everyone is throwing around as segwits promise..

yet listening to Gmaxwell and Luke JR in the last month.. it looks to be 3600tx for 1.8mb(realdata) while sticking with just 1mb block limit

[rizzlarolla]

also when using the 1.8x in combination with the average tx size brings out the 7200tx a block everyone is throwing around as segwits promise..

Is that the median tx size you mean here?
Average is (you calculated) over 500 byte.

[franky1]

also when using the 1.8x in combination with the average tx size brings out the 7200tx a block everyone is throwing around as segwits promise..

Is that the median tx size you mean here?
Average is (you calculated) over 500 byte.

its the AVERAGE lol
as explained

then others say that the average is 500bytes but core will eventually allow 2mb in 2017
1mb block = 2000tx so 1mb segwit would be 3600tx(2000*1.8 ) and 2mb segwit 7200

[rizzlarolla]

also when using the 1.8x in combination with the average tx size brings out the 7200tx a block everyone is throwing around as segwits promise..

Is that the median tx size you mean here?
Average is (you calculated) over 500 byte.

its the AVERAGE lol
as explained

then others say that the average is 500bytes but core will eventually allow 2mb in 2017
1mb block = 2000tx so 1mb segwit would be 3600tx(2000*1.8 ) and 2mb segwit 7200

Yeah, "others (you and me) say" average 500 byte.
But segwit supporters say "1.8x in combination with the average "median" tx size brings out the 7200tx..."
They wouldn't say "average" in this context would they?, as according to your own (seemingly correct guesstimates) that would be a lie confusion on their part.

Sorry, I'm not trying to be an idiot. It is important (to me) as who is claiming what, and why median is used.
I will reread!

As you know I have asked Greg if he knows the average tx size, and why the median, not average tx size, is such a great fee size indicator.
Still waiting.
Even 21.co seem a bit flummoxed.

edited

[jbreher]

Things ignored by this post:
...
At the end of the day, _no one_ has the authority to push a hardfork onto other people

Things gmaxwell may be hoping you ignore in this post:

The segwit design calls for a future bitcoinj compatible hardfork

- Gregory Maxwell greg at xiph.org, [bitcoin-dev] Capacity increases for the Bitcoin system., https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-December/011865.html

[gmaxwell]

If average tx is twice median tx, will this not lead to under paying tx fees?
(i am asking 21.co also)

The 'average' tx mostly doesn't exist. The sizes of transactions are highly multi-modal. There are a whole lot of small ones (most ones people make) and a decreasing number of larger and larger ones that drag up the average. If you're joe-schmoe and make a transaction, it's most likely you'll make a median sized one.

It's like saying the the average number of testicles an American has is 1... and yet relatively few people have exactly one testicle, even though it's the average.

[In no case should fees be under-paid... in competent wallets fees are configured per unit size and set accordingly. ]

Another way to think about it is that "a transaction" isn't really a great unit of capacity. Consider, what if everyone started using 4-party non-amount-matched coinjoins for all their transactions. We'd end up with 1/4 the number of "transactions" each of 4x the size. Would it be right to say that suddenly the Bitcoin network had 1/4th the capacity because now the tx were 4x larger?  No-- they're also doing 4x as much.

[hv_]

If average tx is twice median tx, will this not lead to under paying tx fees?
(i am asking 21.co also)

The 'average' tx mostly doesn't exist. The sizes of transactions are highly multi-modal. There are a whole lot of small ones (most ones people make) and a decreasing number of larger and larger ones that drag up the average. If you're joe-schmoe and make a transaction, it's most likely you'll make a median sized one.

It's like saying the the average number of testicles an American has is 1... and yet relatively few people have exactly one testicle, even though it's the average.

[In no case should fees be under-paid... in competent wallets fees are configured per unit size and set accordingly. ]

Another way to think about it is that "a transaction" isn't really a great unit of capacity. Consider, what if everyone started using 4-party non-amount-matched coinjoins for all their transactions. We'd end up with 1/4 the number of "transactions" each of 4x the size. Would it be right to say that suddenly the Bitcoin network had 1/4th the capacity because now the tx were 4x larger?  No-- they're also doing 4x as much.

You could say this only if you know the characteristcs of the tx size distribution (of the future!) or at least the first moments. the average or mean as you know is a very good estimation while the median is just the mid of all sizes and a just bit more stable against outliers. And the density is highest where?

[mki8]

IMHO

If it aint broke, dont fkkn fix it.

[TooDumbForBitcoin]

If average tx is twice median tx, will this not lead to under paying tx fees?
(i am asking 21.co also)

The 'average' tx mostly doesn't exist. The sizes of transactions are highly multi-modal. There are a whole lot of small ones (most ones people make) and a decreasing number of larger and larger ones that drag up the average. If you're joe-schmoe and make a transaction, it's most likely you'll make a median sized one.

It's like saying the the average number of testicles an American has is 1... and yet relatively few people have exactly one testicle, even though it's the average.

[In no case should fees be under-paid... in competent wallets fees are configured per unit size and set accordingly. ]

Another way to think about it is that "a transaction" isn't really a great unit of capacity. Consider, what if everyone started using 4-party non-amount-matched coinjoins for all their transactions. We'd end up with 1/4 the number of "transactions" each of 4x the size. Would it be right to say that suddenly the Bitcoin network had 1/4th the capacity because now the tx were 4x larger?  No-- they're also doing 4x as much.

What's the median number of testicles?

[rizzlarolla]

No. 226 is actually the _median_ transaction size.

Median transaction size is now 327 332
44% increase.

https://bitcoinfees.21.co/