Date: Wed, 10 May 2017 16:39:00 +0000
In-Reply-To: <CAKzdR-r=y=myz60v9FnYr3tJbW9LgNQkAoA9+F-+jaLScg2PJw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAKzdR-qojNn8OtUTPbxa0JauK9nmo2ZGm4ihKuyzsz_FAgokDw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAMBsKS_j7Lso6fHoMPkrQ7UFwKfxOERAAqL=aUF83O4CqL+iFg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAKzdR-on-w9EF+2hLjchdyHB1gj7fi4QnybA=J4Cz7yyN3KKNA@mail.gmail.com>
	<e86d9b29-f7dd-75da-e6c6-f55648bea104@mattcorallo.com>
	<CAKzdR-pyE2f0jdsU+QGbJQ9gMepsyS880kntE9MRvDBLG_Nchg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAKzdR-pN0B-wjhPh3n6Jw7L6wsz9yQ=kyVX7NYx5ACZC3bg8OA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAS2fgQsT7c+CEfC+U9N+g-+V4s8WnQjRqDddfCKMb6+BkJ3-A@mail.gmail.com>
	<f4605b47-03be-7493-fa3a-19ad4def3fa8@mattcorallo.com>
	<CAAS2fgQv84WgScOkAt_FttgQHjGbRMBmjXA8_EcmyL_K=WCCWA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAKzdR-qsj9Ag8o1UqcgZpKTVRwXm2+qJuHfxHu6keLgkWeEnAw@mail.gmail.com>
	<b24b84bf-315c-1463-acee-4b6edab41d52@mattcorallo.com>
	<CAKzdR-r=y=myz60v9FnYr3tJbW9LgNQkAoA9+F-+jaLScg2PJw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
 charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
To: Sergio Demian Lerner <sergio.d.lerner@gmail.com>
From: Matt Corallo <lf-lists@mattcorallo.com>
Message-ID: <B067643A-FBFD-4F59-B7AE-77769B9A9ACE@mattcorallo.com>
Cc: bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Some real-world results about the current Segwit
	Discount
Precedence: list

I highly disagree about the "not shit" part=2E  You're advocating for throw=
ing away one of the key features of Segwit, something that is very importan=
t for Bitcoin's long-term reliability! If you think doing so is going to so=
mehow help get support in a divided community, I don't understand how - mor=
e likely you're only going to make things significantly worse=2E

On May 10, 2017 11:25:27 AM EDT, Sergio Demian Lerner <sergio=2Ed=2Elerner=
@gmail=2Ecom> wrote:
>Jaja=2E But no shit=2E Not perfect maybe, but Bitcoin was never perfect=
=2E It
>has
>always been good enough=2E And at the beginning it was quite simple=2E
>Simple
>enough it allowed gradual improvements that anyone with some technical
>background could understand=2E Now we need a full website to explain an
>improvement=2E
>But this is becoming more and more out of topic=2E
>
>
>On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 11:05 AM, Matt Corallo
><lf-lists@mattcorallo=2Ecom>
>wrote:
>
>> I'm highly unconvinced of this point=2E Sure, you can change fewer
>lines
>> of code, but if the result is, lets be honest, shit, how do you
>believe
>> its going to have a higher chance of getting acceptance from the
>broader
>> community? I think you're over-optimizing in the wrong direction=2E
>>
>> Matt
>>
>> On 05/09/17 20:58, Sergio Demian Lerner wrote:
>> > I agree with you Matt=2E
>> > I'm artificially limiting myself to changing the parameters of
>Segwit as
>> > it is=2E=2E
>> >
>> > This is motivated by the idea that a consensual HF in the current
>state
>> > would have greater chance of acceptance if it changes the minimum
>number
>> > of lines of code=2E
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 5:13 PM, Gregory Maxwell <greg@xiph=2Eorg
>> > <mailto:greg@xiph=2Eorg>> wrote:
>> >
>> >     On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 7:42 PM, Matt Corallo
>> >     <lf-lists@mattcorallo=2Ecom <mailto:lf-lists@mattcorallo=2Ecom>>
>wrote:
>> >     > at beast=2E
>> >
>> >     Rawr=2E
>> >
>> >
>>