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
|
Return-Path: <tomz@freedommail.ch>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A89B65AA
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 26 May 2017 18:48:38 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mx-out01.mykolab.com (mx.kolabnow.com [95.128.36.1])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B4530F3
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 26 May 2017 18:48:37 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at kolabnow.com
X-Spam-Score: -2.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW
autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
Received: from mx03.mykolab.com (mx03.mykolab.com [10.20.7.101])
by mx-out01.mykolab.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0B5AB615FD;
Fri, 26 May 2017 20:48:34 +0200 (CEST)
From: Tom Zander <tomz@freedommail.ch>
To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org,
Jacob Eliosoff <jacob.eliosoff@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 26 May 2017 20:48:32 +0200
Message-ID: <2134289.AMSES3raTP@strawberry>
In-Reply-To: <CAAUaCyiHUOQ-rhN5XiGyMc6ocfsNBuH_tzK_QWu7sg1=Qd-o=Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAUaCyiHUOQ-rhN5XiGyMc6ocfsNBuH_tzK_QWu7sg1=Qd-o=Q@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 26 May 2017 18:52:34 +0000
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Barry Silbert segwit agreement
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: Fri, 26 May 2017 18:48:38 -0000
On Friday, 26 May 2017 19:47:11 CEST Jacob Eliosoff via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> Forgive me if this is a dumb question.
Sorry for picking your email.
I understand people want something different for the agreement, I know I do=
=20
too.
We have a specific agreement on the table, signed by a huge subsection of t=
he=20
industry.
Maybe the time for changing things is not to be *after* the signatures are=
=20
set. I know I=E2=80=99d change some detials. But do we really want to go th=
rough=20
another conference where all the important people are present to agree on a=
=20
compromise? Or can we use the one we have?
The compromise is pretty simple;
https://medium.com/@DCGco/bitcoin-scaling-agreement-at-consensus-2017-13352=
1fe9a77
* Activate Segregated Witness at an 80% threshold, signaling at bit 4
* Activate a 2 MB hard fork within six months
=2D-=20
Tom Zander
Blog: https://zander.github.io
Vlog: https://vimeo.com/channels/tomscryptochannel
|
