Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C194AB77 for ; Wed, 10 May 2017 19:40:57 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-qt0-f172.google.com (mail-qt0-f172.google.com [209.85.216.172]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F40CAFE for ; Wed, 10 May 2017 19:40:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-qt0-f172.google.com with SMTP id n4so1069968qte.2 for ; Wed, 10 May 2017 12:40:53 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=1p4KUdAafeA8YTEVQTNmRisW+LSss/r40wlpqHvHrmI=; b=ofEz+vMP9QI6rZf3Jef5Ai/x7SzIumzrye3MyHqyG6zh6QOHrul4WU8URN+TpkmV0L 3i1nXhFPNUNoE8/undlBhUB+z3NCbQFlwZWuYM/BDyR2QX40R0T5VsBJELhxRg8VIo1Y TAr1IITAtGftvM72HPzYTRvSIqShYmHk0JAFSFaUC3WB2k7KUNItS8f9Y3daAxpzQZNz t8g4WcIRBvwcXW/crkx8bz460wbCgU4ZbWk2ID0tVxwAKFat3EGdee1yIyc1lUj1twF1 +wUb58/2etkG6IeGy1NPS3QiuuMNjSQzDOBZL9csf/NnwtjdwZar1NQfxEso+0cvxW1U 3Uzg== 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:cc; bh=1p4KUdAafeA8YTEVQTNmRisW+LSss/r40wlpqHvHrmI=; b=AdrXSKPe6P8du93KHqekJN1PR453LOZbBZNx7zqqtnZWr39aI9J5VKAZOURBal9Cyk NlldDL5isyKeF/DF2bPCcnwLtnvVpQzzJU1I5SvtAQ2AzIQ885k2V8yPZFPQQ95rkxpE QPuL2ZoNM+KCQc42CEvCOO1GKAv5I/4o0nuY93RThbtLiGBZ0SZieIxbBfho0guGZsT2 dGmo8FojSnrAXNXr7gm4eWfsWdzFXbB7V6WgMzMy3q7fZ+eZIL7wk7aKBSw0cdQcbFxs 5lVaOAjFt6TWkOWWQVKocvIuqUFrBW9G/xuRdpkNwnxEtnxhaUxuKU3BG+L6Ae2PVBP/ 9FXQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AODbwcD5al6c49AwSBXrDLYRMtpID9iKP4iTE6aB2g/FW/IX2sRa0VOL fV9TCMZPiVSJRulGk/XTdL0Phvpm1Q== X-Received: by 10.200.37.227 with SMTP id f32mr173160qtf.221.1494445253239; Wed, 10 May 2017 12:40:53 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.12.165.132 with HTTP; Wed, 10 May 2017 12:40:12 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Sergio Demian Lerner Date: Wed, 10 May 2017 16:40:12 -0300 Message-ID: To: Matt Corallo Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1140359874a947054f30a6fa X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM autolearn=no version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Cc: bitcoin-dev Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Some real-world results about the current Segwit Discount 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, 10 May 2017 19:40:57 -0000 --001a1140359874a947054f30a6fa Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 I'm not advocating. I'm mediating. This is out of On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 1:39 PM, Matt Corallo wrote: > I highly disagree about the "not shit" part. You're advocating for > throwing away one of the key features of Segwit, something that is very > important for Bitcoin's long-term reliability! If you think doing so is > going to somehow help get support in a divided community, I don't > understand how - more likely you're only going to make things significantly > worse. > > On May 10, 2017 11:25:27 AM EDT, Sergio Demian Lerner < > sergio.d.lerner@gmail.com> wrote: > >Jaja. But no shit. Not perfect maybe, but Bitcoin was never perfect. It > >has > >always been good enough. And at the beginning it was quite simple. > >Simple > >enough it allowed gradual improvements that anyone with some technical > >background could understand. Now we need a full website to explain an > >improvement. > >But this is becoming more and more out of topic. > > > > > >On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 11:05 AM, Matt Corallo > > > >wrote: > > > >> I'm highly unconvinced of this point. Sure, you can change fewer > >lines > >> of code, but if the result is, lets be honest, shit, how do you > >believe > >> its going to have a higher chance of getting acceptance from the > >broader > >> community? I think you're over-optimizing in the wrong direction. > >> > >> Matt > >> > >> On 05/09/17 20:58, Sergio Demian Lerner wrote: > >> > I agree with you Matt. > >> > I'm artificially limiting myself to changing the parameters of > >Segwit as > >> > it is.. > >> > > >> > This is motivated by the idea that a consensual HF in the current > >state > >> > would have greater chance of acceptance if it changes the minimum > >number > >> > of lines of code. > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 5:13 PM, Gregory Maxwell >> > > wrote: > >> > > >> > On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 7:42 PM, Matt Corallo > >> > > > >wrote: > >> > > at beast. > >> > > >> > Rawr. > >> > > >> > > >> > --001a1140359874a947054f30a6fa Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I'm not advocating. I'm mediating.=C2=A0
=

This is out of=C2=A0

On Wed, May 10, 2017 at = 1:39 PM, Matt Corallo <lf-lists@mattcorallo.com> wrot= e:
I highly disagree about the "not = shit" part.=C2=A0 You're advocating for throwing away one of the k= ey features of Segwit, something that is very important for Bitcoin's l= ong-term reliability! If you think doing so is going to somehow help get su= pport in a divided community, I don't understand how - more likely you&= #39;re only going to make things significantly worse.

On May 10, 2017 11:25:27 AM EDT, Sergio Demian Lerner <sergio.d.lerner@gmail.com> wrote:
>Jaja. But no shit. Not perfect maybe, but Bitcoin was never perfect. It=
>has
>always been good enough. And at the beginning it was quite simple.
>Simple
>enough it allowed gradual improvements that anyone with some technical<= br> >background could understand. Now we need a full website to explain an >improvement.
>But this is becoming more and more out of topic.
>
>
>On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 11:05 AM, Matt Corallo
><lf-lists@mattcorallo.co= m>
>wrote:
>
>> I'm highly unconvinced of this point. Sure, you can change few= er
>lines
>> of code, but if the result is, lets be honest, shit, how do you >believe
>> its going to have a higher chance of getting acceptance from the >broader
>> community? I think you're over-optimizing in the wrong directi= on.
>>
>> Matt
>>
>> On 05/09/17 20:58, Sergio Demian Lerner wrote:
>> > I agree with you Matt.
>> > I'm artificially limiting myself to changing the paramete= rs of
>Segwit as
>> > it is..
>> >
>> > This is motivated by the idea that a consensual HF in the cur= rent
>state
>> > would have greater chance of acceptance if it changes the min= imum
>number
>> > of lines of code.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 5:13 PM, Gregory Maxwell <greg@xiph.org
>> > <mailto:greg@xiph.org= >> wrote:
>> >
>> >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 7:42 PM, Matt Coral= lo
>> >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0<lf-lists@mattcorallo.com <mailto:lf-lists@mattcorallo.com>>
>wrote:
>> >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0> at beast.
>> >
>> >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Rawr.
>> >
>> >
>>

--001a1140359874a947054f30a6fa--