From: Tom Zander <tomz@freedommail.ch>
To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2016 20:54:04 +0200
Message-ID: <9782389.Gd5V7OpbDZ@strawberry>
In-Reply-To: <CABm2gDrhCw-5mpCK814hK4Y1sEUcHZyFMHqHziC1b1LLtMWVDA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPg+sBjdyJ297-GZvVc-wQwCEX-cRAGTNWDd92SgVzdCcD_ZMw@mail.gmail.com>
	<2034434.4WpKWoeOrB@strawberry>
	<CABm2gDrhCw-5mpCK814hK4Y1sEUcHZyFMHqHziC1b1LLtMWVDA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Start time for BIP141 (segwit)
Precedence: list

On Sunday, 16 October 2016 20:41:34 CEST Jorge Tim=F3n wrote:
> You keep insisting on "2 months after activation", but that's not how
> BIP9 works. We could at most change BIP9's initial date, but if those
> who haven't started to work on supporting segwit will keep waiting for
> activation, then changing the initial date won't be of any help to
> them can only delay those who are ready and waiting.

Then don't use BIP9...

Honestly, if the reason for the too-short-for-safety timespan is that you=20
want to use BIP9, then please take a step back and realize that SegWit is a=
=20
contriversial soft-fork that needs to be deployed in a way that is extra=20
safe because you can't roll the feature back a week after deployment.
All transactions that were made in the mean time turn into everyone-can-
spent transactions.

I stand by the minimum of 2 months. There is no reason to use BIP9 as it wa=
s=20
coded in an older client. That is an excuse that I don't buy.
=2D-=20
Tom Zander
Blog: https://zander.github.io
Vlog: https://vimeo.com/channels/tomscryptochannel