Before getting to my reply to Tom's message, I forgot to give my thoughts on the Nov. 15 date. I think it's a reasonable date. With various holidays coming up in the West, it's probably best to get the word out now so that work can progress before some people get sucked into family obligations and such. A month gives a bit of time without dragging out the waiting game, IMO.
Now then.... On 2016/10/16 11:20, Tom Zander via bitcoin-dev wrote: > There have been objections to the way that SegWit has been implemented for a > long time, some wallets are taking a "wait and see" approach. If you look > at the page you linked, that is a very very sad state of affairs. The > vast majority is not ready. Would be interesting to get a more up-to-date > view. It's not the website's fault if wallet devs aren't updating their statuses. Besides, "WIP" can mean an awful lot of things. For example, I know Armory made significant progress with SegWit support as part of their upcoming 0.95 release. I have full confidence they'll be ready relatively soon. Other wallets may be ready. Other wallets may be stuck where they were in the spring. In any event, it's a free country. Unlike consensus rules and such, it's trivial to move one's funds to a wallet that fully supports SegWit if that's what one desires. In addition, I was at the wallet workshop at Scaling Bitcoin last week. An awful lot of things were on the board as potential discussion points. I think SegWit was mentioned but wasn't really discussed. I don't think FlexTrans was even mentioned (and it's off-topic anyway). Wallet devs are far more concerned about things like UI and standards for HW wallets than they are about their ability to support SegWit. I think wallet devs are quite capable of making noise if they felt that SegWit was a bad feature, or a difficult-to-support feature. > Wallets probably won't want to invest resources adding support for a feature > that will never be activated. The fact that we have a much safer alternative > in the form of Flexible Transactions may mean it will not get activated. We > won't know until its actually locked in. A lot of devs have already worked on SegWit support. This has been covered. Even if they don't support SegWit, the wallets will probably work just fine. (For awhile, Armory did crash when trying to read SegWit data in Core's blockchain files. That problem was fixed, and it was probably a rarity since very few wallets rely directly on Core.) As long as devs use testnet or regtest to iron out their kinks before hitting mainnet, I can't think of a single good reason to hold back SegWit solely due to wallet support. Also, once again, FlexTrans is off-topic. As others have said, you're basically being stubborn at this point. If you insist on discussing FlexTrans, start another thread. It sounds like quite a few devs would be more than happy to say a word or two about your proposal. -- --- Douglas Roark Cryptocurrency, network security, travel, and art. https://onename.com/droark joro...@vt.edu PGP key ID: 26623924
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list firstname.lastname@example.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev