So BitUsher also cedes the point that SegWit does nothing to ease centralization due to burden of larger blocks upon fully-validating nodes. Joining Lauda, exstasie, and forevernoob. Excellent. Who's next?
Nice classic-speak jbreher-- Someone saying that a change increases bandwidth usage doesn't mean they're saying it does nothing to mitigate.
For those who actually care about the facts: Segwit does ease the burden compared to a blocksize increase: It eliminates the quadratic cost in transaction signature hashing, it opens up new sync mode for full nodes that are using pruning that will allow them to skip downloading the signatures they aren't going to validate or store, it also allows running a non-upgrade segwit node to get a mostly-validating state (which is useful as a last resort for someone who's alternative would be to not run a node at all), and (compared to Bitcoin Classic's proposal) doesn't make the potential impact on the UTXO set size any worse (so on this point, it's an increase, but less of an increase than just changing the blocksize limit would be).
median transaction size of 226byte??
i think u meant minimum not median
That is the
median size.
after all most blocks are averaging about 2500tx not 4424tx.. so get with reality..
You're just being
mean.