MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20151221080747.GA24839@sapphire.erisian.com.au>
References: <CAAS2fgQyVs1fAEj+vqp8E2=FRnqsgs7VUKqALNBHNxRMDsHdVg@mail.gmail.com>
	<20151208110752.GA31180@amethyst.visucore.com>
	<CAPWm=eUomq6SBC0ky0WSs5=_G942vigm4RmgYuq0O-yJ-vqC2A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPg+sBig9O5+he0PWhTkX5iin14QLz5+eCCu6KfwU=DxntKYtg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPg+sBhQN2HDvH8dfq2VsQ0dTA9V=HgQsCJdP6B72fj1SDA4yw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADJgMzuk9Q09AnmR5=77p0HfkeUWOTRSNCSkAAQN0zDq4Hsbqw@mail.gmail.com>
	<20151221080747.GA24839@sapphire.erisian.com.au>
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2015 10:56:54 +0100
Message-ID: <CABm2gDrhTMU7hBgYB3YF+pvCOzp2Bq4dAqJQRLB_fa8+Y9yRag@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
To: Anthony Towns <aj@erisian.com.au>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Capacity increases for the Bitcoin system.
Precedence: list

To clarify, although I have defended the deployment of segwit as a
hardfork, I have no strong opinion on whether to do that or do it as a
softfork first and then do a hardfork to move things out of the
coinbase to a better place.
I have a strong opinion against never doing the later hardfork though.
I would have supported segwit for Bitcoin even if it was only possible
as a hardfork, but there's a softfork version and that will hopefully
accelerate its deployment.
Since the plan seems to be to do a softfork first and a hardfork
moving the witness tree (and probably more things) outside of the
coinbase later, I support the plan for segwit deployment.
In fact, the plan is very exciting to me.