I'm not advocating. I'm mediating.
This is out of
On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 1:39 PM, Matt Corallo
wrote:
> 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
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 - m
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
improvem
I messed up and only replied to Russel O'Connor; my response is copied below.
And then there's a bit more.
-
Aha, Wagner's generalized birthday attack, the bane of all clever tricks!
I didn't realize it applied in this case but looks like it in fact does.
applies to this case. It would have
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 05/09/1
On Tue, May 09, 2017 at 09:59:06PM -0400, Russell O'Connor via bitcoin-dev
wrote:
> I'm a bit amateur at this sort of thing, but let me try to argue that this
> proposal is in fact horribly broken ;)
>
> Suppose Alice has some UTXO with some money Bob wants to steal. Grant me
> that the public k
