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
|
Return-Path: <kiwigb@yahoo.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A5672A7A
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 16 Oct 2016 21:03:57 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from nm35-vm8.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com
(nm35-vm8.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com [72.30.239.58])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 21383139
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 16 Oct 2016 21:03:56 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com; s=s2048;
t=1476651836; bh=Dbzhf0SWVlCexsq4LYim0Q3q3IkYnF3bE5WHVbL9DJM=;
h=Subject:From:To:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From:Subject;
b=H0Veol0INAi+gQTdBAB9t7J1EZBAOjWQPQjbZi2C93mJ/JttaUl2XhtrmJwG8/6jlD1LLy5l3A8vEAWLUI/vEn9OaFDTcAodrBTTpJWEGWvE1veaGJi0syVZsYaWQqw6ynAa4jUpuEYFSCk+egN/NnKThOfjxKYTM2n/Gqk+aPAhcGw+SYypBfgDKRO0+4NCp7mB9q2oUbU0nVozbP43e8PO1VuKD3iG5XFYY7lXN3ryB08pwaPxiG5cHGfXy1Z6Bw04x8Nq4HXccBXKs7YsuJsSPNAMsbA8mNi8SICgqohXNxbBc4S7Zhqyk1pify+MWX9AtGopsqAAHaHw+QVrOA==
Received: from [98.139.170.178] by nm35.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP;
16 Oct 2016 21:03:56 -0000
Received: from [98.139.211.194] by tm21.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP;
16 Oct 2016 21:03:56 -0000
Received: from [127.0.0.1] by smtp203.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP;
16 Oct 2016 21:03:56 -0000
X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 276424.80837.bm@smtp203.mail.bf1.yahoo.com
X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3
X-YMail-OSG: bpsMGpcVM1kKfMi3awFrmkAk_kgGnensSMpoiAPiGW3y6sN
4gEOjPiLDsq64qSKqTJ9JK_oLmTFtuD9g0B.BrtBb.n3t1PIkI8x1NKaWbfH
F40E2ZLQuZ9GXINB3xPl2AuicErv48rqfzal220Nauts2QqHas7XxKKkTkUe
o_A3aNVOWS5.2XWdf1iLnCkl5RJo08GXQ.ZXy2GwZ_UrRgr1jYvqBIRiurBw
Ga9zKdYGheP5aAsYoKBhcxKdOoVu.xWBQ8snO3TqnNUm42_vfTk7mktjdVH8
u4Ryc.cN18Kjwo5pb6qteknnVR7iUoR2YnOd2teYotG2RvJoU4IBT4sK3_K3
6KSTHAT3gIjbzcVX.SaNQQTvO5BhM8cl_dAWoV5MOC80e4rjQ4Gw6Sbz.3cN
xcjvW_1B1DndZqmb38FZhG79h.vwNDN22m7t5OIPdZIk_vdCjlPdWdYtHmTU
wg9nNeEOUxEpVrLTYCDKbgZUF9Lgw9dFM8x.LzLa9EZ5brqQpgGM0VrOGQ2Q
QVahcc35WSPmRxQeJFCsEqc8dx.vOmZbrN1WgVX0sUVTTjkTz
X-Yahoo-SMTP: kMAkG6uswBCBwEfDAoIbXivsMA--
Message-ID: <1476651832.2406.2.camel@yahoo.com>
From: gb <kiwigb@yahoo.com>
To: Tom Zander <tomz@freedommail.ch>, Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2016 10:03:52 +1300
In-Reply-To: <7939356.11nSWPlGYM@strawberry>
References: <CAPg+sBjdyJ297-GZvVc-wQwCEX-cRAGTNWDd92SgVzdCcD_ZMw@mail.gmail.com>
<2034434.4WpKWoeOrB@strawberry>
<03831fcd-1fd5-b769-0b3b-41e996894e1f@vt.edu>
<7939356.11nSWPlGYM@strawberry>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Mailer: Evolution 3.12.11 (3.12.11-1.fc21)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,
RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 16 Oct 2016 21:04:45 +0000
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: Sun, 16 Oct 2016 21:03:57 -0000
It's controversial not contriversial.
And it isn't controversial except among a small clique, which you seem
to be the sole representative of here. It might be time to consider
unsubscribing (again) if you don't seem to know when to shut up and the
moderators are letting you go on an inappropriate crusade here.
On Sun, 2016-10-16 at 22:58 +0200, Tom Zander via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> On Sunday, 16 October 2016 12:49:47 CEST Douglas Roark via bitcoin-dev
> wrote:
> > It's not the website's fault if wallet devs aren't updating their
> > statuses. Besides, "WIP" can mean an awful lot of things.
>
> As I said, it would be nice to get an updated version so we can see more
> than 20% readyness of wallets.
> The wallet devs not caring enough to update the status should be a worrying
> sign, though.
>
> > 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
>
> SegWit is probably the most disruptive and most invasive change ever made to
> Bitcoin. We have miners actively saying they don't like it and this makes it
> a contriversial upgrade which means the network may split and other issues.
>
> Your "wallets will probably work just fine" comment is honestly not the
> answer to make people put faith in the way that this is being vetted and
> checked...
>
> > Also, once again, FlexTrans is off-topic.
>
> Its an alternative and brought up in that vain. Nothing more. Feel free to
> respond to the BIP discussion (134) right on this list if you have any
> opinions on it. They will be on-topic there. No problems have been found so
> far.
>
> Lets get back to the topic. Having a longer fallow period is a simple way to
> be safe. Your comments make me even more scared that safety is not taken
> into account the way it would.
>
> People are not even acknowledging the damage a contriversial soft fork of
> the scope and magnitude of SegWit can have, and a simple request to extend
> the fallow time for safety is really not a big deal.
> SegWit has been in development for 18 months or so, what is a couple of
> extra week??
>
> I would just like to ask people to take the safety of Bitcoin serious. This
> discussion and refusal to extend the safety period is not a good sign.
|
