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: <lf-lists@mattcorallo.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 46597910
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 26 May 2017 20:05:00 +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 C927E1A4
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 26 May 2017 20:04:59 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [172.17.0.2] (gw.vpn.bluematt.me [144.217.106.88])
by mail.bluematt.me (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 976C4135E1B;
Mon, 12 Jan 1970 06:31:35 +0000 (UTC)
To: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>, Gregory Maxwell <greg@xiph.org>,
Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
References: <CAAS2fgQNPvEuta0KubeDetgYxGhWvdGK10jig0y4ayv0EvZPLw@mail.gmail.com>
<87r2ze2833.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>
From: Matt Corallo <lf-lists@mattcorallo.com>
Message-ID: <63d03825-da9b-328d-56b8-0d062f3e0c62@mattcorallo.com>
Date: Fri, 26 May 2017 20:04:58 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/52.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <87r2ze2833.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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
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 <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 20:05:00 -0000
A more important consideration than segwit's timeout is when code can be
released, which will no doubt be several months after SegWit's current
timeout.
Greg's proposed 6 months seems much more reasonable to me, assuming its
still many months after the formal release of code implementing it.
Matt
On 05/24/17 04:26, Rusty Russell via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
> 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.
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
|
