It’s kinda sad to see bitcoiners start to make up “drawbacks” of segwit that we “compromised on” that aren’t even true.
First of all, there is no “discount”, only a weight limit, and it’s really fuckin important for bitcoin transactions, and should have been there from day one.
Don’t be disheartened Matt. You know the community well at this point. Even though I disagree with you on some points especially the comments on eth, I still appreciate all your contributions to bitcoin. Thank you.
wasn’t the effective 4mb vs. a smaller size limit a clear compromise even though the big blockers were looking to make blocks even bigger?
it’s done now but we could have had smaller blocks if we had accepted some of the network at the time would fork off regardless…
No, I really don’t think it was.
in hindsight, it feels like it but it is what it is now. not really possible to rewind and replay an alternate reality.
Maybe, but given transaction growth at the time I think it was pretty clearly not the wrong decision. Given today maybe, but today isn’t important either, it’s five years from now, and it’s still unclear.
More importantly, the “effective size” is not 4mb, it’s closer to 1.3mb
i may need to be educated here, but can I do the initial download and verification without having to fetch the entire 4mb of data for the blocks that are full of inscriptions?
Full of inscriptions it’s 4mb, if people were actually transacting it’s closer to 1.3. Ultimately it’s just 4M*WU*, measuring in mb is useless.
Real transactions take a lot more resources for a full node to process than inscriptions, the costing is (roughly) correct here.
