On Sunday, 16 October 2016 20:41:34 CEST Jorge Timón 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 want to use BIP9, then please take a step back and realize that SegWit is a contriversial soft-fork that needs to be deployed in a way that is extra 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 was coded in an older client. That is an excuse that I don't buy. -- Tom Zander Blog: https://zander.github.io Vlog: https://vimeo.com/channels/tomscryptochannel _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
