Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6AEB2A95 for ; Wed, 12 Jul 2017 17:39:02 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-vk0-f49.google.com (mail-vk0-f49.google.com [209.85.213.49]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4A5C2212 for ; Wed, 12 Jul 2017 17:39:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-vk0-f49.google.com with SMTP id r125so17080261vkf.1 for ; Wed, 12 Jul 2017 10:39:01 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=jtimon-cc.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=lL7AOS8wXs6/TOSY0xSx4rvd2XW7YhknCXbF9aaaiTE=; b=BrDlPQNf9ALwvDeHVwF0I0QiqwMRiQYADK6RpXclVFAa7yLZeVAGwPI4suQYAh5GJc Q0JhT8NbJWd4OfrCnKmOV24VVt/Vx8goEiLXB6pa3J5Io+x8a0Z8o6DlYL3xcYi/UtFj vXwCKP6saCNmaBugbRnb5g2k8GpJBi7bdKCzjy2F66w7MURHyxMrsa6rwyCV/29vnzjy WdQiD1XClF0VhJW4F8cRDSKIfh/nTZmVbgJad2iTAOXIK3uQK3cEDBD4auawYdQHA3BI zGSqkSrG/7l29mBflBfGAPEqUMbFNoXM1AJd124HHdPhmAAUMjOCrH5M590PtVxzd971 fS+g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=lL7AOS8wXs6/TOSY0xSx4rvd2XW7YhknCXbF9aaaiTE=; b=GZamjSrTVV2rl2vA/jk05Mghhv9qSlr4ovHgx1s05QOYJN6J8isrS8zcwIRhqH4ixc IvYxecyX1gz2eyPJEw4skSTkVMPdoFN26RD4IGI9hKmOeohUtbQxYA6l5wxFdlF9scXY ZEYRD/r2dPPXEnaOxeDvrWk5cN7/ChXO1fuiILWmetltKBpT+cly1kF62xoVDa3zGTUy qqo6ULv+IansXoS2VBtnvWISBw5RsbzzhXNyIl0XfStZ+smfMC9JJR3747yNiq1WKdJw uGkSe0E9wrUjcVe0+/6YN0boFJ46jAByPxcALMLhX9692spmAwBzfbDn+jX5M7fXjLzs vyww== X-Gm-Message-State: AIVw1116m3ZzN7aEu2lewe1evzomzvSigWJWJwVs3tJaReNF/8Xxl/uA h3iZwI4NTAbBPqksk14m2JPEd2cIDpML X-Received: by 10.31.165.23 with SMTP id o23mr1963907vke.37.1499881140067; Wed, 12 Jul 2017 10:39:00 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.31.52.85 with HTTP; Wed, 12 Jul 2017 10:38:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.31.52.85 with HTTP; Wed, 12 Jul 2017 10:38:58 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <7869651.CRYTeDpGy9@strawberry> References: <7869651.CRYTeDpGy9@strawberry> From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2017 19:38:58 +0200 Message-ID: To: Bitcoin Dev , Tom Zander Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1142ee3c8f30df0554224a5a" X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 12 Jul 2017 19:24:56 +0000 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] A Segwit2x BIP X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2017 17:39:02 -0000 --001a1142ee3c8f30df0554224a5a Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 12 Jul 2017 2:31 pm, "Tom Zander via bitcoin-dev" < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: On Monday, 10 July 2017 20:38:08 CEST Jorge Tim=C3=B3n via bitcoin-dev wrot= e: > I think anything less than 1 year after release of tested code by some > implementation would be irresponsible for any hardfork, even a very > simple one. Good news! Code to support 2x (the hard fork part of the proposal) has been out and tested for much longer than that. Not true. It's different code on top of segwit. The first attempt in btc1 (very recent) didn't even increased the size (because it changed the meaningless "base size" without touching the weight limit. As for the current code, I don't think it has been properly tested today, let alone "for mucj longer than 1 year. Anyway, I said, one year from tested release. Segwitx2 hasn't been released, has it? If so, too late to discuss a bip imo, the bip may end up being different from what has been released due to feedback (unless it is ignored again, of course). -- Tom Zander Blog: https://zander.github.io Vlog: https://vimeo.com/channels/tomscryptochannel _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev --001a1142ee3c8f30df0554224a5a Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On 12 Jul 2017 2:31 pm, "Tom Zander via bitcoin-dev" &l= t;bitcoin-dev@list= s.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
On Monday, 10 July 2017 20:38:08 CEST= Jorge Tim=C3=B3n via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> I think anything less than 1 year after release of tested code by some=
> implementation would be irresponsible for any hardfork, even a very > simple one.

Good news!

Code to support 2x (the hard fork part of the proposal) has been out and tested for much longer than that.

Not true. It's different code on= top of segwit. The first attempt in btc1 (very recent) didn't even inc= reased the size (because it changed the meaningless "base size" w= ithout touching the weight limit. As for the current code, I don't thin= k it has been properly tested today, let alone "for mucj longer than 1= year.
Anyway, I said, one year from tested release.= Segwitx2 hasn't been released, has it? If so, too late to discuss a bi= p imo, the bip may end up being different from what has been released due t= o feedback (unless it is ignored again, of course).
=

--001a1142ee3c8f30df0554224a5a--