diff options
| author | Tom Zander <tomz@freedommail.ch> | 2016-10-16 22:58:31 +0200 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | bitcoindev <bitcoindev@gnusha.org> | 2016-10-16 20:58:37 +0000 |
| commit | 3d77b9e9b24eddf9938cf0bd99215d00110e24df (patch) | |
| tree | 0ad90568d478880716f59eaa66d64bc6f15ab6e3 | |
| parent | f97df78d7adc42ec3976d326b787a6b312a31a67 (diff) | |
| download | pi-bitcoindev-3d77b9e9b24eddf9938cf0bd99215d00110e24df.tar.gz pi-bitcoindev-3d77b9e9b24eddf9938cf0bd99215d00110e24df.zip | |
Re: [bitcoin-dev] Start time for BIP141 (segwit)
| -rw-r--r-- | c0/7071dbdd292a73c0c47cb080d2ccc875c4ce8b | 94 |
1 files changed, 94 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/c0/7071dbdd292a73c0c47cb080d2ccc875c4ce8b b/c0/7071dbdd292a73c0c47cb080d2ccc875c4ce8b new file mode 100644 index 000000000..0e6d3811b --- /dev/null +++ b/c0/7071dbdd292a73c0c47cb080d2ccc875c4ce8b @@ -0,0 +1,94 @@ +Return-Path: <tomz@freedommail.ch> +Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org + [172.17.192.35]) + by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 54761A7A + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Sun, 16 Oct 2016 20:58:37 +0000 (UTC) +X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 +Received: from mx-out02.mykolab.com (mx.kolabnow.com [95.128.36.1]) + by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7DC34139 + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Sun, 16 Oct 2016 20:58:36 +0000 (UTC) +X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at kolabnow.com +X-Spam-Score: -2.9 +X-Spam-Level: +X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW + autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 +Received: from mx05.mykolab.com (mx05.mykolab.com [10.20.7.161]) + by mx-out02.mykolab.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 253476223B + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Sun, 16 Oct 2016 22:58:33 +0200 (CEST) +From: Tom Zander <tomz@freedommail.ch> +To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org +Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2016 22:58:31 +0200 +Message-ID: <7939356.11nSWPlGYM@strawberry> +In-Reply-To: <03831fcd-1fd5-b769-0b3b-41e996894e1f@vt.edu> +References: <CAPg+sBjdyJ297-GZvVc-wQwCEX-cRAGTNWDd92SgVzdCcD_ZMw@mail.gmail.com> + <2034434.4WpKWoeOrB@strawberry> + <03831fcd-1fd5-b769-0b3b-41e996894e1f@vt.edu> +MIME-Version: 1.0 +Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit +Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" +X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on + smtp1.linux-foundation.org +X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 16 Oct 2016 21:00:01 +0000 +Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Start time for BIP141 (segwit) +X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org +X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 +Precedence: list +List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org> +List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>, + <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe> +List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/> +List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> +List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help> +List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>, + <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe> +X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2016 20:58:37 -0000 + +On Sunday, 16 October 2016 12:49:47 CEST Douglas Roark via bitcoin-dev +wrote: +> It's not the website's fault if wallet devs aren't updating their +> statuses. Besides, "WIP" can mean an awful lot of things. + +As I said, it would be nice to get an updated version so we can see more +than 20% readyness of wallets. +The wallet devs not caring enough to update the status should be a worrying +sign, though. + +> A lot of devs have already worked on SegWit support. This has been +> covered. Even if they don't support SegWit, the wallets will probably +> work just fine. (For awhile, Armory did crash when trying to read SegWit + +SegWit is probably the most disruptive and most invasive change ever made to +Bitcoin. We have miners actively saying they don't like it and this makes it +a contriversial upgrade which means the network may split and other issues. + +Your "wallets will probably work just fine" comment is honestly not the +answer to make people put faith in the way that this is being vetted and +checked... + +> Also, once again, FlexTrans is off-topic. + +Its an alternative and brought up in that vain. Nothing more. Feel free to +respond to the BIP discussion (134) right on this list if you have any +opinions on it. They will be on-topic there. No problems have been found so +far. + +Lets get back to the topic. Having a longer fallow period is a simple way to +be safe. Your comments make me even more scared that safety is not taken +into account the way it would. + +People are not even acknowledging the damage a contriversial soft fork of +the scope and magnitude of SegWit can have, and a simple request to extend +the fallow time for safety is really not a big deal. +SegWit has been in development for 18 months or so, what is a couple of +extra week?? + +I would just like to ask people to take the safety of Bitcoin serious. This +discussion and refusal to extend the safety period is not a good sign. +-- +Tom Zander +Blog: https://zander.github.io +Vlog: https://vimeo.com/channels/tomscryptochannel + |