mirrors/bitcoin-bips
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/bitcoin/bips.git synced 2025-01-18 21:35:13 +01:00
Code Issues Projects Releases Wiki Activity

BIP 145: Update s/cost/weight/

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Luke Dashjr 2016-07-23 20:35:56 +00:00
parent c98859fe20
commit d8928eb85a
1 changed files with 6 additions and 6 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

12
bip-0145.mediawiki
View File

@ -22,7 +22,7 @@ The template Object is revised to include a new key:
|-
! Key !! Required !! Type !! Description
|-
| costlimit || No || Number || total cost allowed in blocks
| weightlimit || No || Number || total weight allowed in blocks
|}
The '!' rule prefix MUST be enabled on the "segwit" rule for templates including transactions with witness data.
@ -40,7 +40,7 @@ The Objects listed in the response's "transactions" key is revised to include th
|-
| txid || String || transaction id encoded in hexadecimal; required for transactions with witness data
|-
| cost || Number || numeric cost of the transaction, as counted for purposes of the block's costlimit; if key is not present, cost is unknown and clients MUST NOT assume it is zero, although they MAY choose to calculate it themselves
| weight || Number || numeric weight of the transaction, as counted for purposes of the block's weightlimit; if key is not present, weight is unknown and clients MUST NOT assume it is zero, although they MAY choose to calculate it themselves
|-
| hash || String || reversed hash of complete transaction (with witness data included) encoded in hexadecimal
|}
@ -66,12 +66,12 @@ It additionally also adds a new way of counting resource limits, and so GBT must
==Rationale==
Why doesn't "costlimit" simply redefine the existing "sizelimit"?
Why doesn't "weightlimit" simply redefine the existing "sizelimit"?
* "sizelimit" is already enforced by clients by counting the sum of bytes in transactions' "data" keys.
* Servers may wish to limit the overall size of a block, independently from the "cost" of the block.
* Servers may wish to limit the overall size of a block, independently from the "weight" of the block.
Why is "sigoplimit" redefined instead of a new "sigopcostlimit" being added?
* The old limit was already arbitrarily defined, and could not be counted by clients on their own anyway. The concept of "sigop cost" is merely a change in the arbitrary formula used.
Why is "sigoplimit" redefined instead of a new "sigopweightlimit" being added?
* The old limit was already arbitrarily defined, and could not be counted by clients on their own anyway. The concept of "sigop weight" is merely a change in the arbitrary formula used.
Why is "sigoplimit" divided by 4?
* To resemble the previous values. (FIXME: is this a good reason? maybe we shouldn't divide it?)