To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
References: <CAPg+sBjdyJ297-GZvVc-wQwCEX-cRAGTNWDd92SgVzdCcD_ZMw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABsx9T2sWKFKpRYsjcgcdef+nL7X9-4+3H10hAy1FsXaax38Og@mail.gmail.com>
	<2d5abad7-cd9d-4396-4dd2-c687a1a808dc@vt.edu>
	<2034434.4WpKWoeOrB@strawberry>
From: Douglas Roark <joroark@vt.edu>
Message-ID: <03831fcd-1fd5-b769-0b3b-41e996894e1f@vt.edu>
Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2016 12:49:47 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:45.0)
	Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <2034434.4WpKWoeOrB@strawberry>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature";
	boundary="RGI5SXtLAkP0su1MurAnjgVLODcfEwHfh"
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Start time for BIP141 (segwit)
Precedence: list

This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156)
--RGI5SXtLAkP0su1MurAnjgVLODcfEwHfh
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="5Qx7DBm88stbL9UxkI96qCHsHoUwHFJ6E";
 protected-headers="v1"
From: Douglas Roark <joroark@vt.edu>
To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Message-ID: <03831fcd-1fd5-b769-0b3b-41e996894e1f@vt.edu>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Start time for BIP141 (segwit)
References: <CAPg+sBjdyJ297-GZvVc-wQwCEX-cRAGTNWDd92SgVzdCcD_ZMw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CABsx9T2sWKFKpRYsjcgcdef+nL7X9-4+3H10hAy1FsXaax38Og@mail.gmail.com>
 <2d5abad7-cd9d-4396-4dd2-c687a1a808dc@vt.edu> <2034434.4WpKWoeOrB@strawberry>
In-Reply-To: <2034434.4WpKWoeOrB@strawberry>

--5Qx7DBm88stbL9UxkI96qCHsHoUwHFJ6E
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Before getting to my reply to Tom's message, I forgot to give my
thoughts on the Nov. 15 date. I think it's a reasonable date. With
various holidays coming up in the West, it's probably best to get the
word out now so that work can progress before some people get sucked
into family obligations and such. A month gives a bit of time without
dragging out the waiting game, IMO.

Now then....

On 2016/10/16 11:20, Tom Zander via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> There have been objections to the way that SegWit has been implemented =
for a=20
> long time, some wallets are taking a "wait and see" approach.  If you l=
ook=20
> at the page you linked[1], that is a very very sad state of affairs. Th=
e=20
> vast majority is not ready.  Would be interesting to get a more up-to-d=
ate=20
> view.

It's not the website's fault if wallet devs aren't updating their
statuses. Besides, "WIP" can mean an awful lot of things. For example, I
know Armory made significant progress with SegWit support as part of
their upcoming 0.95 release. I have full confidence they'll be ready
relatively soon. Other wallets may be ready. Other wallets may be stuck
where they were in the spring. In any event, it's a free country. Unlike
consensus rules and such, it's trivial to move one's funds to a wallet
that fully supports SegWit if that's what one desires.

In addition, I was at the wallet workshop at Scaling Bitcoin last week.
An awful lot of things were on the board as potential discussion points.
I think SegWit was mentioned but wasn't really discussed. I don't think
FlexTrans was even mentioned (and it's off-topic anyway). Wallet devs
are far more concerned about things like UI and standards for HW wallets
than they are about their ability to support SegWit. I think wallet devs
are quite capable of making noise if they felt that SegWit was a bad
feature, or a difficult-to-support feature.

> Wallets probably won't want to invest resources adding support for a fe=
ature=20
> that will never be activated. The fact that we have a much safer altern=
ative=20
> in the form of Flexible Transactions may mean it will not get activated=
=2E We=20
> won't know until its actually locked in.

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
data in Core's blockchain files. That problem was fixed, and it was
probably a rarity since very few wallets rely directly on Core.) As long
as devs use testnet or regtest to iron out their kinks before hitting
mainnet, I can't think of a single good reason to hold back SegWit
solely due to wallet support.

Also, once again, FlexTrans is off-topic. As others have said, you're
basically being stubborn at this point. If you insist on discussing
FlexTrans, start another thread. It sounds like quite a few devs would
be more than happy to say a word or two about your proposal.

--=20
---
Douglas Roark
Cryptocurrency, network security, travel, and art.
https://onename.com/droark
joroark@vt.edu
PGP key ID: 26623924


--5Qx7DBm88stbL9UxkI96qCHsHoUwHFJ6E--

--RGI5SXtLAkP0su1MurAnjgVLODcfEwHfh
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org

iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJYA9nwAAoJEEOBHRomYjkk0YkP/0ojQg0we3wI8J6ujw+AkGTo
0LpqtSC53cVwfVdV/+6lH4jWj54pf49R5ky+bkkSKU84NGIeLSAeE9IRJ6kVVRzs
c87e6kohfbKj157QrtWCMyBGONAGvqRhYGmcuOy3Di+0skXjQPotbRS3Ztrmriy3
c9GwyGmp4a/1wr6KwJZJEkL3l4Vr4neWjYiVdicyJa6D7+yuPxNQrXDzf1s1NKvq
xCjEJPULP9DUW74dheLaZPBr0QXGqnVoPE/RmtCGxkkxdZSwPuC41unaerSMd3bP
nBIQ+zj/ZkyP6x1j/PiiICfn/Pn2EM96dtk0qZXBEuMkiYQ7Q//43arZx1AaBXx0
VdlE4HIZuTHJhmX/NRWrnmGSSZzyWnV453pE77+A5jAaVCKIe46o4QrcEWuPlQib
JUEKX+ParF5848c4MM4P+I1l1xfTZcFFfucdpWI3Hwle3nrznnQ0Wp9l78/VXOte
hENaWE48EHFjxRGg2Y05bCcH7TIxAvK/CDl6bMA1A09JfKx81cL4mPcZmFTiS3Qq
Nl02vNufH2kv99fauia4sGGzlg1zzVpQzgYLtBlWOOk+1Ij3zbebBV42G5HmxdSN
DXMyO9oATsAPdJ98U5mJGUREcPDGoYMMsh4jOHcgJRuBzGqA05GemA9sRAUd9NEe
sIpOybF2XdkB/MqNXoV2
=2f0/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--RGI5SXtLAkP0su1MurAnjgVLODcfEwHfh--