1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
|
Return-Path: <achow101@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B95CF98C
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 17 Oct 2016 13:18:41 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-qk0-f176.google.com (mail-qk0-f176.google.com
[209.85.220.176])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 502BFD2
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 17 Oct 2016 13:18:41 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-qk0-f176.google.com with SMTP id f128so224808281qkb.1
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 17 Oct 2016 06:18:41 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version
:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding;
bh=2OqP0ZvVIM1aetrVplGLoxnQIRmOfKrtKBPhxAmZ/4w=;
b=QLcWU6dgqmvVgg4+h/0TkynaXjbGR8zW/EhxzbIcY9YcnOxWbOaTOgz8xYLbL04mc5
u6EPcUf0vzMOJGpuVukizk7t5nrQDUTLQwGC5mx5ygc2Snzn3Yp+R41Yxhm6JkBffo9G
hKrWQZiJqkptTERM7WdN7APub3/cv/G+6WVb2OnVDE38QL1N7i5MIdQlb4r8nMS/rXwm
H6TG9JX0hdLnVwE6VwS75K1reprXF1oCqFCAoFJrdmKPjS3pwpXTW3tH5F1F7oa8scdQ
C/TMgpuO4wsuODm1918UTSPdZJ7wwuUZak9xX3O970nB+PYCgjWgv0Vff0N1TbPOJVip
TyCg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date
:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding;
bh=2OqP0ZvVIM1aetrVplGLoxnQIRmOfKrtKBPhxAmZ/4w=;
b=W8PtyQ4KcgnUnhxOJNnvPZyHnNpi6OtVJOxFDqlPqPf+8L4IlEmhptKmd9/g6Adur2
f0FxOzV726sLGRLsUcPX5KuQBAf1ov7n1C8ffEP84VjGVtsx5SJxVoTBl6pa6+T93vzK
vg4z02fOeQle1sGhLprUfWHR4EskMeCvooqXdSlFZujU+IJI932AmDwRR0AX/Y+2rbLt
hFp1cIfKarvRQS6MK9KAOymmn6YR3x3ZfFsKfho+U6u1jjH8jMVnOa5osiutSeKBEaqE
iX+6gJR1fZqs0OIl2MbSmt2W6rw173zgnxRrgpD5ORNsFWNPc17QoGiTkCnGohwyJ01T
jFig==
X-Gm-Message-State: AA6/9Rkd2l6W93iIB20oBXtE+R0ADbxQDF4qh+GDRpBwzfMU/L9DfOQ7UkLqFCNROkRe/A==
X-Received: by 10.55.66.21 with SMTP id p21mr26689713qka.288.1476710319209;
Mon, 17 Oct 2016 06:18:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.108.219.45] ([206.196.187.156])
by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id
d9sm10492750qkj.25.2016.10.17.06.18.38
(version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128);
Mon, 17 Oct 2016 06:18:38 -0700 (PDT)
To: Tom Zander <tomz@freedommail.ch>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
References: <CAPg+sBjdyJ297-GZvVc-wQwCEX-cRAGTNWDd92SgVzdCcD_ZMw@mail.gmail.com>
<7939356.11nSWPlGYM@strawberry>
<22046ac7-df36-2e2a-759e-b3dd01601c59@gmail.com>
<2381760.VTJ5BOIlGi@strawberry>
From: Andrew C <achow101@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ee5e672d-9bbb-d7f3-2360-64871fc1b6a5@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2016 09:19:29 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/45.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <2381760.VTJ5BOIlGi@strawberry>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT,FREEMAIL_FROM,
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
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Start time for BIP141 (segwit)
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2016 13:18:41 -0000
On 10/17/2016 7:17 AM, Tom Zander via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> As Marek wrote just minutes before your email came in; companies will n=
ot=20
> roll out their updates until it locks in. Peter Todd says the same thin=
g.
> So your assumption that the lock-in time is the END of the upgrading is=
=20
> false. Thats only the case for miners.
But again, how does having a longer fallow period make this any safer?
As was mentioned before, a lot of the wallets listed as WIP have code
ready and tested, just not officially released, so not listed as ready.
It doesn't take 2 months to roll out a software update that is already
prepared beforehand.
> The entire point here is that SegWit is much bigger than just full node=
s=20
> (including miner).
> An entire ecosystem of Bitconin will have a need to upgrade.
>
> I understand people saying that non-miners don't *need* to upgrade in o=
rder=20
> to avoid being kicked of the network, but truely, thats a bogus argumen=
t.
>
> People want to actually participate in Bitcoin and that means they need=
to=20
> understand all of it. Not just see anyone-can-spend transactions.
> I think its rather odd to think that developers on this list can decide=
> the risk profile that Bitcoin using companies or individuals should hav=
e.
I think it's rather odd that no major Bitcoin companies have raised any
such issues with Segwit and in fact many already have the upgrade in the
works. I think it's rather odd that individuals who are not opposed to
segwit would choose to not upgrade even though it has been actively
discussed for the past year.
> There are a bunch of really large assumptions in there that I disagree =
with.
> First of all, miners running the latest software doesn't mean the softw=
are=20
> is free from flaws. Everyone makes mistakes. People that see a way to a=
buse=20
> the system may have found things and are not reporting it because they =
want=20
> to abuse the flaw for their own gains. Which is exactly what happened w=
ith=20
> Etherium.
While flaws can still be found, unlike the DAO, Segwit has been tested
extensively for a much longer period of time. Waiting any longer isn't
likely to help given that so much testing and review has already been
done. Even so, that is a pointless argument as it is impossible to know
whether waiting a little longer would reveal an issue.
>
> The amount of code and the amount of changes in SegWit makes this a ver=
y=20
> dangerous change in (of?) Bitcoin. I counted 10 core concepts in Bitcoi=
n=20
> being changed with it. We don't yet know how they will interact. We can=
=E2=80=99t.
Really? How so? It's been active on 4 different segwit specific testnets
and it has been active on the Testnet for the past several months.
People have been spamming segwit transactions and extensively testing
Segwit since its deployment on Testnet. I think we know how segwit
transactions and all aspects of the changes work together as it has been
tested as such for several months now.
|
