No, changing from 50% to 75% is a hardfork. (75 -> 50 is a softfork). Unless you make it pre-scheduled, or leave a special “backdoor” softfork to change the discount.
And that would certainly reduce the max tx/s with 50% discount, also reduce the incentive to spend witness UTXO. > On 10 May 2017, at 00:19, Sergio Demian Lerner <sergio.d.ler...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Thanks Johnson and Hampus for the clarifications. > However, I would rather do the opposite: soft-fork to 50% now, and soft-fork > again to 75% discount later if needed, because it doesn't affect the max > transactions/second. > > Segwit as it is today should be activated. However if it is not before > November, then for the next Segwit attempt I would choose a more conservative > 50% discount. > > > > On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 12:45 PM, Johnson Lau <jl2...@xbt.hk > <mailto:jl2...@xbt.hk>> wrote: > > > On 9 May 2017, at 21:49, Sergio Demian Lerner via bitcoin-dev > > <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > > <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>> wrote: > > > > > > So it seems the 75% discount has been chosen with the idea that in the > > future the current transaction pattern will shift towards multisigs. This > > is not a bad idea, as it's the only direction Bitcoin can scale without a > > HF. > > But it's a bad idea if we end up doing, for example, a 2X blocksize > > increase HF in the future. In that case it's much better to use a 50% > > witness discount, and do not make scaling risky by making the worse case > > block size 8 Mbytes, when it could have been 2*2.7=5.4 Mbytes. > > > > As we could change any parameter in a hardfork, I don’t think this has any > relation with the current BIP141 proposal. We could just use 75% in a > softfork, and change that to a different value (or completely redefine the > definition of weight) with a hardfork later. > > >
_______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
