Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A3D15BD5 for ; Wed, 9 Dec 2015 07:54:51 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-vk0-f51.google.com (mail-vk0-f51.google.com [209.85.213.51]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9337E145 for ; Wed, 9 Dec 2015 07:54:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: by vkay187 with SMTP id y187so38221443vka.3 for ; Tue, 08 Dec 2015 23:54:49 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=jtimon-cc.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=f6rnQmyrh4oT5aB3/N/vgwP4XLpf8kb8cKNiei6gU+c=; b=gU2QsIvk3GTvO7ICLBmFGR02U1yPa+NGs1wVASRSU8tlSL90jYHjxSmBVDuA/gpMiV SQOylVpnM3N28Ju9pUNcypuivV9w4MkQUYqj7CBy+po4NosMnUw8mKsLRIY3w0+mItAJ fbQQ65xDrKRz9pZbriUvWyEKxsSlRW1zxH6xD3aBPKnPjOxdDrMxSx6LJWW56IUgszai ujGRb+xSipKpTqknhIXtnTTTlV2YNieTrwSV0v0eQZKCzO3clVfenS44+1U6xxNCff+f g9wPYTFS5EB+lLND5tXqZz89bOzy2KnO9NIytx97+v+JkyNNWSoLKzmhFAPYHwKywCWH ST4Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=f6rnQmyrh4oT5aB3/N/vgwP4XLpf8kb8cKNiei6gU+c=; b=fXCl3ViTAXW+GgV6tR+WpNmp/r/AWcWSWiibeilhBz+5z8AOpicRx45i5FVodyGf3a FgdaXiqMztM9rW0R4MxUcg4wGFgYuV3e8JBaWNByAM9khtpZsZdtv0WDKDnN4ekb8GD2 vo354/781ZfLMjrs4tzqIVYxyCD7x5kOzolgKWztPjR5RUupyfnoIZLH/xlYI+51XlT1 L4rApUtiEcr44aPCy5xI+nTP1MfMlPsj/O3r1qeV+cTyJ/T8w60J1RnX57NCqEPSOX24 J4qE8rFOTnEyW5IwtMlzlA6zhfZzOn4W4AL0zcw3ZVT/g12wbQaX+z8R/0kHegEh4XuD mNyg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlLb3mcQm/u+6OlIRqruRNC4gnaW5MIdRvmg0t7e7Gu3Aiy7LcECJWSOwhwCIV/YcyrQl3in1Wr8uzk6h68k5vcHkub1A== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.31.169.137 with SMTP id s131mr3464207vke.144.1449647689702; Tue, 08 Dec 2015 23:54:49 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.31.236.70 with HTTP; Tue, 8 Dec 2015 23:54:49 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <20151208110752.GA31180@amethyst.visucore.com> Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2015 08:54:49 +0100 Message-ID: From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= To: Gregory Maxwell Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham 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] Capacity increases for the Bitcoin system. X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Dec 2015 07:54:51 -0000 On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 7:29 AM, Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev wrote: > What was being discussed was the location of the witness commitment; > which is consensus critical regardless of where it is placed. Should > it be placed in an available location which is compatible with the > existing network, or should the block hashing data structure > immediately be changed in an incompatible way to accommodate it in > order to satisfy an ascetic sense of purity and to make fraud proofs > somewhat smaller? From this question one could think that when you said "we can do the cleanup hardfork later" earlier you didn't really meant it. And that you will oppose to that hardfork later just like you are opposing to it now. As said I disagree that making a softfork first and then move the commitment is less disruptive (because people will need to adapt their software twice), but if the intention is to never do the second part then of course I agree it would be less disruptive. How long after the softfork would you like to do the hardfork? 1 year after the softfork? 2 years? never?