From: Tom Zander <tomz@freedommail.ch>
To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org,
	Jacob Eliosoff <jacob.eliosoff@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 26 May 2017 20:48:32 +0200
Message-ID: <2134289.AMSES3raTP@strawberry>
In-Reply-To: <CAAUaCyiHUOQ-rhN5XiGyMc6ocfsNBuH_tzK_QWu7sg1=Qd-o=Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAUaCyiHUOQ-rhN5XiGyMc6ocfsNBuH_tzK_QWu7sg1=Qd-o=Q@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Barry Silbert segwit agreement
Precedence: list

On Friday, 26 May 2017 19:47:11 CEST Jacob Eliosoff via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> Forgive me if this is a dumb question.

Sorry for picking your email.

I understand people want something different for the agreement, I know I do=
=20
too.
We have a specific agreement on the table, signed by a huge subsection of t=
he=20
industry.

Maybe the time for changing things is not to be *after* the signatures are=
=20
set. I know I=E2=80=99d change some detials. But do we really want to go th=
rough=20
another conference where all the important people are present to agree on a=
=20
compromise? Or can we use the one we have?

The compromise is pretty simple;
https://medium.com/@DCGco/bitcoin-scaling-agreement-at-consensus-2017-13352=
1fe9a77

*  Activate Segregated Witness at an 80% threshold, signaling at bit 4
*  Activate a 2 MB hard fork within six months

=2D-=20
Tom Zander
Blog: https://zander.github.io
Vlog: https://vimeo.com/channels/tomscryptochannel