Gregory Maxwell,
Criticizing 148 without suggesting a specific alternative leaves the community
in disarray.
I know you are emphasizing patience. But at the same time, with your patience
we are allowing ourselves to get dicked for longer than necessary.
I think that core could easily develop code that could create a solid/reliable
date/height based activation to allow miners to create SegWit block candidates
and having nodes fully verify them. Shaolinfry is the only person Ive seen
actually make such a proposal:
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-April/014049.html.
His makes it so that SegWit default gets activated at the end of the BIP9
signalling timeframe instead of default leaving it non-activated.
I agree that 148 is is not ideal. Non-SegWit signaling blocks are not a Denial
of Service, given that other activation methods are available. Someone just
needs to code something up that is better that we can all use in a satisfying
time frame. So far 148 is the most practical and reliable method I'm aware of.
If 148 causes orphaning and a fork, I don't think such really matters in the
long term. The non-SegWit miners will probably just quickly give up their
orphans once they realize that money users like being able to have non-mutable
TX IDs. If they do create a long lasting branch... well that is good too, I'd
be happy to no longer have them in our community. Good luck to them in creating
a competitive money, so that we can all enjoy lower transaction fees.
SegWit has already undergone enough testing. It is time to activate it.
Cheers,
Praxeology Guy
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
