I highly disagree about the "not shit" part. You're advocating for throwing away one of the key features of Segwit, something that is very important for Bitcoin's long-term reliability! If you think doing so is going to somehow help get support in a divided community, I don't understand how - more likely you're only going to make things significantly worse.
On May 10, 2017 11:25:27 AM EDT, Sergio Demian Lerner <sergio.d.ler...@gmail.com> wrote: >Jaja. But no shit. Not perfect maybe, but Bitcoin was never perfect. It >has >always been good enough. And at the beginning it was quite simple. >Simple >enough it allowed gradual improvements that anyone with some technical >background could understand. Now we need a full website to explain an >improvement. >But this is becoming more and more out of topic. > > >On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 11:05 AM, Matt Corallo ><lf-li...@mattcorallo.com> >wrote: > >> I'm highly unconvinced of this point. Sure, you can change fewer >lines >> of code, but if the result is, lets be honest, shit, how do you >believe >> its going to have a higher chance of getting acceptance from the >broader >> community? I think you're over-optimizing in the wrong direction. >> >> Matt >> >> On 05/09/17 20:58, Sergio Demian Lerner wrote: >> > I agree with you Matt. >> > I'm artificially limiting myself to changing the parameters of >Segwit as >> > it is.. >> > >> > This is motivated by the idea that a consensual HF in the current >state >> > would have greater chance of acceptance if it changes the minimum >number >> > of lines of code. >> > >> > >> > >> > On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 5:13 PM, Gregory Maxwell <g...@xiph.org >> > <mailto:g...@xiph.org>> wrote: >> > >> > On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 7:42 PM, Matt Corallo >> > <lf-li...@mattcorallo.com <mailto:lf-li...@mattcorallo.com>> >wrote: >> > > at beast. >> > >> > Rawr. >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
