Timeline for How does SegWit reduce transaction size, when the signature is simply moved to another part of the transaction?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 4, 2018 at 0:25 | comment | added | Murch♦ | @PieterWuille: Thanks, I added a TL;DR, inspired by this comment. | |
| Jan 4, 2018 at 0:23 | history | edited | Murch♦ | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 257 characters in body
|
| Jan 3, 2018 at 15:17 | comment | added | Pieter Wuille | The short answer to the question in the title is simply that SegWit does not reduce transaction size (when size means bytes). What it does is define a new concept as 'size', which no longer directly corresponds to disk size. In this new size, the witness is discounted, and so - for all intents and purposes - transactions become 'smaller'. | |
| Jan 2, 2018 at 21:07 | vote | accept | robinnnnn | ||
| Jan 2, 2018 at 9:44 | comment | added | Murch♦ | @pebwindkraft: The virtual size of transactions is strictly smaller or equal to the raw transaction size, since part of the raw size is discounted. Hence with the virtual size limit being equal to the previous blocksize limit, the actual storage footprint can exceed the previous blocksize limit. A fact also observable in the lowest chart here: segwit.party/charts | |
| Jan 2, 2018 at 8:58 | comment | added | pebwindkraft | yup, thx, the block capacity is this "abstraction layer" (maybe not the right word, as I am not a native speaker). I was really thinking of bits and bytes, which are stored on disk (or are also transferred through the network connections). So block capacity ("weight") and disk capacity are something different. That was the confusing part. Sipa mentioned here (bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/58018/…), blocksize would increase. As he is "godfather of segwit", I trust him :-) Segwit rocks! | |
| Jan 2, 2018 at 4:40 | comment | added | Murch♦ | @pebwindkraft: I think 3.7MB is the maximum size that can be achieved as it's impossible to put all data into the witness. I don't know what you mean with "abstraction layer" but the block capacity is defined in weight. It's from that blockweight limit that the weight's relevance for the fee rate derives. | |
| Jan 1, 2018 at 22:25 | comment | added | pebwindkraft | So weight must be an abstraction layer, cause when I have a block, that I want to store on disk, it consumes BYTES. Or when I transfer the block over net, the same Bytes are calculated. Would a maximum SegWit block transfer 4Megabytes? I was wondering, if the "weight" is only relevant for the fee calculation? | |
| Jan 1, 2018 at 2:14 | history | edited | Murch♦ | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 75 characters in body
|
| Jan 1, 2018 at 1:09 | history | answered | Murch♦ | CC BY-SA 3.0 |