Looking forward to some quality Schnorr FUD from Jbear and crew.
I don't know why you'd think that. I don't believe I have previously espoused an opinion on Schnorr sigs.
You basically said Schnorr signatures would do nothing to alleviate the scaling issue. That would qualify as an opinion.
Hmm. I guess you know more about my past postings than do I. Link?
Schnorr can obviously reduce the size of txs that have multiple elements. I wouldn't say that is 'nothing'. If this be shown to be a reversal of a previously held opinion, then so be it.
Of course, my final opinion would be driven by an analysis of not merely the
benefits of Schnorr, but also its
costs.
edit: Oh - I see you've added the link. Thank you. I shall quote:
Currently it would take over 30 years to send each person on earth a single Bitcoin transaction. Think about that.
Lightning does nothing to alleviate that.
Segwit does nothing to alleviate that.
Schnorr sigs does nothing to alleviate that.
True enough. If you wish to send every person on earth a single Bitcoin tx (e.g., perhaps to open an LN channel), it will take on the order of three decades. And Schnorr indeed does nothing to alleviate that. It is a true statement, and it is not identical to "Schnorr signatures would do nothing to alleviate the scaling issue".
Your assertion is shown to be false.
After re-reading your post I stand corrected on my interpretation and agree you were referring to a very extreme theoretical scenario where all the block space is used exclusively for opening channels for every person on earth.
I am glad to hear you agree that Schnorr signatures could have some impact on scaling improvement depending on circumstances.