Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 04DB72C for ; Wed, 24 May 2017 05:54:06 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from ozlabs.org (ozlabs.org [103.22.144.67]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 682B414B for ; Wed, 24 May 2017 05:54:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: by ozlabs.org (Postfix, from userid 1011) id 3wXhRH4HfQz9sPC; Wed, 24 May 2017 15:54:03 +1000 (AEST) From: Rusty Russell To: Gregory Maxwell , Bitcoin Dev In-Reply-To: References: Date: Wed, 24 May 2017 13:56:56 +0930 Message-ID: <87r2ze2833.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED, 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 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP149 timeout-- why so far in the future? 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, 24 May 2017 05:54:06 -0000 Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev writes: > Based on how fast we saw segwit adoption, why is the BIP149 timeout so > far in the future? > > It seems to me that it could be six months after release and hit the > kind of density required to make a stable transition. Agreed, I would suggest 16th December, 2017 (otherwise, it should be 16th January 2018; during EOY holidays seems a bad idea). This means this whole debacle has delayed segwit exactly 1 (2) month(s) beyond what we'd have if it used BIP8 in the first place. Cheers, Rusty.