development still required me thinks
That's correct. I've read somewhere that Schnorr signatures could reduce the transaction sizes by some 25% (average) and would also add more privacy.
I don't know yet if there are unwanted side effects in that though... We'll live and see...
But Segwit is in the right direction in my opinion. Because with it will come other inclusive soft forks like Schnorr that would improve on-chain scalability.
ok heres a lesson for you both
the 1mb limit still exists in the bitcoin core network.
transaction data needs to sit in the 1mb limit. but Segwit lets signatures sit outside.
the reason the block in this topics example is what it is.. is because alot of signature data sits outside the 1mb area. but.. that leaves space inside the 1mb are.. hense why the OP's example only has a few hundred transactions as oppose to a couple thousand
schnorr will reduce the amount of signatures thus bring down only the witness area weight. but it still does not sort out the limitation of the 1mb area
what needs to happen is completely remove the 1mb limit so all the legacy transaction data can utilise the entire 4mb weight. which then means we actually get more transaction capacity per mb (4x with a true no hidden sublimit, 4mb block)
the math was already done and the consensus is if EVERY transaction was a LEAN SEGWIT. the best hope would be 2.1x increase of transactions.
but at the moment it still sits at only 10% segwit utility.
(i know people will say its 40%. but thats not the case. the graph showing such treats a mixed tx of legacy and segwit as a full segwit which misleads the reality of real statistics)
in short. if schnorr was used the OP's example would still only be a couple hundred transactions but the weight outside the 1mb limit would be less.
meaning schnorr is not scaling. is unbloating the bloat of the 'witness' area
