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
|
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 8A2D2C7C
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 26 May 2017 14:54:10 +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 04C2EAD
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 26 May 2017 14:54:08 +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 6727961BEC;
Fri, 26 May 2017 16:54:05 +0200 (CEST)
From: Tom Zander <tomz@freedommail.ch>
To: Erik Aronesty <erik@q32.com>
Date: Fri, 26 May 2017 16:54:03 +0200
Message-ID: <2558127.44xyt0tXJh@strawberry>
In-Reply-To: <CAJowKgKAN8ti8_BQj=7r=uAAegfg=0AisbhQghNA5L5t51c8PA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <D0299438-E848-4696-B323-8D0E810AE491@gmail.com>
<2575282.hbjRTIzDqY@strawberry>
<CAJowKgKAN8ti8_BQj=7r=uAAegfg=0AisbhQghNA5L5t51c8PA@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 14:58:21 +0000
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Emergency Deployment of SegWit as a partial
mitigation of CVE-2017-9230
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 14:54:10 -0000
On Friday, 26 May 2017 16:39:30 CEST Erik Aronesty wrote:
> Linking a bit4 MASF with a bit4 "lock in of a hard fork in 6 months" is
> something that will simply never happen for basic engineering reasons.
The modifications to Bitcoin Core would take at most a day to do, plus a we=
ek=20
to test.
I=E2=80=99m not very happy with the full compromise myself, but can we plea=
se not=20
stomp on actual progress with nebulous problems?
I mean, you want SegWit, right?
> Claiming that miners support segwit is disingenuous ... considering that
> if they supported it, they would be signaling for it today... instead of
> distracting the community with fake proposals that have no peer-reviewed
> code.
The nature of a compromise like the one that happened in New York is that=20
both parties do something they are not the most happy with in exchange for=
=20
the thing they want.
Miners have agreed to the SegWit part of this compromise. Calling that=20
disingenuous is not helpful...
=2D-=20
Tom Zander
Blog: https://zander.github.io
Vlog: https://vimeo.com/channels/tomscryptochannel
|
