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

Reply via email to