Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2107DBD3 for ; Wed, 10 May 2017 16:39:10 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail.bluematt.me (mail.bluematt.me [192.241.179.72]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DCC7B14C for ; Wed, 10 May 2017 16:39:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [33.253.12.20] (unknown [172.56.18.52]) by mail.bluematt.me (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 64C0C13AE72; Wed, 10 May 2017 16:39:04 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 10 May 2017 16:39:00 +0000 In-Reply-To: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable To: Sergio Demian Lerner From: Matt Corallo Message-ID: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 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] Some real-world results about the current Segwit Discount X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 May 2017 16:39:10 -0000 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 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 > >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 > > > wrote: >> > >> > On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 7:42 PM, Matt Corallo >> > > >wrote: >> > > at beast=2E >> > >> > Rawr=2E >> > >> > >>