Quote from: AdolfinWolf on September 03, 2018, 04:02:49 PM

Quote from: clear cookies on September 03, 2018, 01:53:53 PM

Means after schnorr starts, the effect is much less significant and overfilled in 1mb block.

So on my opinion i'm disaggre to schnorr on bitcoin.

How can you dislike a feature that literally has 0 downsides..? AFAIK, the only minor annoyance is that it might require a softfork.

Quote from: @oweljayr on September 03, 2018, 12:10:49 PM

I guess this could the the best coming feat...<-snip->

What/where did you read that? Schnorr signatures have absolutely nothing to do with wire tapping, or i must have missed something.

A lot of faucets & exchanges pay their userbase from multiple "sources"/inputs.
If fees start to rise again, Schnorr signatures might prove to be extremely useful, and decrease fees for such companies significantly. I remember that at one point that withdraw fees on poloniex were really absurd, (0.005BTC?). If only we had schnorr signatures back then, it could've possibly been a lot less/ never spiraled up to that point.

It might even keep the entire faucet industry to live yet another day, as i know that fees like the ones we had in December really crippled them, to the point where multiple faucet networks simply shut down and ran with customer funds, as it was simply unprofitable.. (Epay.info et al)

Sir, This is just my opinion regarding the subject, it's just an example of how it will make classified information more secure. Means it will lessen the worries of being interfered by hackers. If it was not the right interpretation of what I understood about Schnorr Signature, then my mistake and I apologize for giving wrong information.