From: Tom Zander <tomz@freedommail.ch>
To: Erik Aronesty <erik@q32.com>
Date: Fri, 26 May 2017 16:54:03 +0200
Message-ID: <2558127.44xyt0tXJh@strawberry>
In-Reply-To: <CAJowKgKAN8ti8_BQj=7r=uAAegfg=0AisbhQghNA5L5t51c8PA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <D0299438-E848-4696-B323-8D0E810AE491@gmail.com>
	<2575282.hbjRTIzDqY@strawberry>
	<CAJowKgKAN8ti8_BQj=7r=uAAegfg=0AisbhQghNA5L5t51c8PA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Emergency Deployment of SegWit as a partial
	mitigation of CVE-2017-9230
Precedence: list

On Friday, 26 May 2017 16:39:30 CEST Erik Aronesty wrote:
> Linking a bit4 MASF with a bit4 "lock in of a hard fork in 6 months" is
> something that will simply never happen for basic engineering reasons.

The modifications to Bitcoin Core would take at most a day to do, plus a we=
ek=20
to test.
I=E2=80=99m not very happy with the full compromise myself, but can we plea=
se not=20
stomp on actual progress with nebulous problems?
I mean, you want SegWit, right?

> Claiming that miners support segwit is disingenuous ... considering that
> if they supported it, they would be signaling for it today... instead of
> distracting the community with fake proposals that have no peer-reviewed
> code.

The nature of a compromise like the one that happened in New York is that=20
both parties do something they are not the most happy with in exchange for=
=20
the thing they want.
Miners have agreed to the SegWit part of this compromise. Calling that=20
disingenuous is not helpful...
=2D-=20
Tom Zander
Blog: https://zander.github.io
Vlog: https://vimeo.com/channels/tomscryptochannel