I ' ve heard that vaping causes cervical cancer in men . <| sep |> A nuzlocke isnt really fun , its honestly devastating when one of your units dieThis is pretty much a challenge thing . And since i pretty much sped run the whole game in 30 days , this is the next big thing <| sep |> Well , you have 3 days to complete it . <| sep |> It ' s somewhat inappropriate to understand anything as a discount in segwit . The network rules do not set transaction fees . Transaction fees are set by users in accordance with market behavior . It ' s somewhat inappropriate to pretend there is no discount . The default CoreSegWit behavior is to prioritize a SegWit transaction that is 300 bytes witness and 400 bytes total over a legacy transaction that is 400 bytes total paying the same fee . If this is not a discount I ' m not sure what it is . There is a quite clear formula that this 75 % discount is based in , as you know couched in the terminology of weight . Trust me , I understand how block weight works . Not sure what this explanation was meant to accomplish . One of the insights that came out of Montreal scaling bitcoin was that many who were opposed to short term capacity increases felt much more confident about ones that fixed the costing to reduce the UTXO bloat externality . There are many possible formulations that are broadly acceptable to this end , but fortunately getting a backwards compatible capacity increase out of segwit really helped narrow the choices . There is 0 proof that the SegWit discount solves or even disincentivizes UTXO growth . You also say The purpose of the weight limit is to set the resource constraints of blocks in a manner which better reflects the true ongoing cost to the network that the blocks represent . This is a very strong claim . What proof do you have that this formula better reflects the true ongoing cost to the network that the blocks represent ? Where is your economic analysis ? Where is your data ? You have absolutely 0 to back this up , it ' s a false claim , and nobody buys this the experts decided this better represents true ongoing cost BS when you can ' t even provide any data to back up your case or even a definition of what goes into true ongoing costs . That isn ' t the case . Older nodes continue to verify everything they always verified . They do not verify the new signature type in other people ' s transactions because they don ' t know how to but they know they don ' t understand them and will not relay them , mine them , or display any descendant transaction from them in their wallet unconfirmed . If 75 % of transactions are SegWit , old nodes verify 25 % of transactions . For the rest they are reduced to SPV security . The original statement stands . This is really vague . What specifically are you referring to here ? I ' m referring to the logic that now that we have 4 MB effective blocks , you may argue that 4 MB blocks are unsafe as they now allow for 16 MB effective blocks . In many ways , SegWit makes hard forking to a larger blocksize more complex , as you know . This is really vague . What specifically are you referring to here ? I ' m not confusing anything . SegWit is activated by miner vote only . hand control over node resource usage to the largest miners . This is not true and it ' s FUDgarbage . In BU , nodes can set their own policy on the max blocks they accept . They do not need to accept larger blocks from miners if they don ' t want to . The only miners really , mining pools I ' ve heard express opposition to segwit was viabtc and Bitcoin . com , both of whom have been in business less than four months . You know as well as I do that Antpool is behind ViaBTC and that most miners are in favor of 8 MB blocks today . The arrogance of comments like this is why you will continue to be rewarded with non activation . I hope you take some time to reflect on your role in the failure of this protocol upgrade and adjust your behavior accordingly going forward .