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
|
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 054E6A58
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 16 Oct 2016 18:54:10 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mx-out02.mykolab.com (mx.kolabnow.com [95.128.36.1])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4ABD7E2
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 16 Oct 2016 18:54:09 +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 mx05.mykolab.com (mx05.mykolab.com [10.20.7.161])
by mx-out02.mykolab.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D5E15622FF
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 16 Oct 2016 20:54:05 +0200 (CEST)
From: Tom Zander <tomz@freedommail.ch>
To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2016 20:54:04 +0200
Message-ID: <9782389.Gd5V7OpbDZ@strawberry>
In-Reply-To: <CABm2gDrhCw-5mpCK814hK4Y1sEUcHZyFMHqHziC1b1LLtMWVDA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPg+sBjdyJ297-GZvVc-wQwCEX-cRAGTNWDd92SgVzdCcD_ZMw@mail.gmail.com>
<2034434.4WpKWoeOrB@strawberry>
<CABm2gDrhCw-5mpCK814hK4Y1sEUcHZyFMHqHziC1b1LLtMWVDA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 16 Oct 2016 18:55:47 +0000
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Start time for BIP141 (segwit)
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: Sun, 16 Oct 2016 18:54:10 -0000
On Sunday, 16 October 2016 20:41:34 CEST Jorge Tim=F3n wrote:
> You keep insisting on "2 months after activation", but that's not how
> BIP9 works. We could at most change BIP9's initial date, but if those
> who haven't started to work on supporting segwit will keep waiting for
> activation, then changing the initial date won't be of any help to
> them can only delay those who are ready and waiting.
Then don't use BIP9...
Honestly, if the reason for the too-short-for-safety timespan is that you=20
want to use BIP9, then please take a step back and realize that SegWit is a=
=20
contriversial soft-fork that needs to be deployed in a way that is extra=20
safe because you can't roll the feature back a week after deployment.
All transactions that were made in the mean time turn into everyone-can-
spent transactions.
I stand by the minimum of 2 months. There is no reason to use BIP9 as it wa=
s=20
coded in an older client. That is an excuse that I don't buy.
=2D-=20
Tom Zander
Blog: https://zander.github.io
Vlog: https://vimeo.com/channels/tomscryptochannel
|
