From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E7BB3A7F for ; Sun, 16 Oct 2016 19:50:15 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from omr1.cc.vt.edu (outbound.smtp.vt.edu [198.82.183.121]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 566FEA8 for ; Sun, 16 Oct 2016 19:50:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mr3.cc.vt.edu (mr3.cc.vt.edu [IPv6:2607:b400:92:8500:0:7f:b804:6b0a]) by omr1.cc.vt.edu (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id u9GJoDci032381 for ; Sun, 16 Oct 2016 15:50:13 -0400 Received: from mail-pa0-f72.google.com (mail-pa0-f72.google.com [209.85.220.72]) by mr3.cc.vt.edu (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id u9GJo78v020020 for ; Sun, 16 Oct 2016 15:50:13 -0400 Received: by mail-pa0-f72.google.com with SMTP id fn2so179134372pad.7 for ; Sun, 16 Oct 2016 12:50:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=ksiYtuUM9e6HA7Yd7fPiAf6/pFkblCw24Twlnbhpx4Y=; b=jn5On7IhXagpcpwykHbfqIQiY4GQFQB39YsybUFxm1uOSm55fMVfki8HVuKctMyciY s+v39AEbY4aFOagPY6LJ0WohTPWv5jZSZlyO1bKN+o4NhrtORMvvSqhtl4FdJQWilIZu bLdp48+57APr4rfr2itR9klTLLzTbE1lcibX4KpQmeGLkVg1EuNZAcugvmRYnRm4eu28 qYd1cyOWSP6oBUZBNza8FIO7aPzreHrLU7g8fur4Pc/glcXX/i8jZqSzHUTp8t486+2b caLsxZ7wZ5G9HIuPpjLNY3Z/8DLzvKLSwHRFnscDdnJZg5xCyBK2Od2+OBV8sW0IzUuj 44/w== X-Gm-Message-State: AA6/9RnEXlEwTA54RY2/p6ol+ziMB9ccY1jYHoXBKuQyfcThoWzwGQnXmqf7IIK/Gl32QHcG4eI/ZJnSRAnN+/mvPTPaCivcpv7VKbE/efR76nDF2Aczs707Sh7p9aLf2oJfiPI9E0U8TYiIKQIF0aSWEarii5nwjKAxmmhzCn/K4HaCWQnvIRs9O5PEyR7iMTbv/sNyrVBfLNw+cvkEU1o= X-Received: by 10.99.56.17 with SMTP id f17mr26930767pga.72.1476647407435; Sun, 16 Oct 2016 12:50:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.99.56.17 with SMTP id f17mr26930756pga.72.1476647407214; Sun, 16 Oct 2016 12:50:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from Doug-Armory.local ([172.56.39.104]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id yz6sm22104370pab.47.2016.10.16.12.50.06 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 16 Oct 2016 12:50:06 -0700 (PDT) To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion References: <2d5abad7-cd9d-4396-4dd2-c687a1a808dc@vt.edu> <2034434.4WpKWoeOrB@strawberry> From: Douglas Roark Message-ID: <03831fcd-1fd5-b769-0b3b-41e996894e1f@vt.edu> Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2016 12:49:47 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <2034434.4WpKWoeOrB@strawberry> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="RGI5SXtLAkP0su1MurAnjgVLODcfEwHfh" X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM,RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Start time for BIP141 (segwit) X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2016 19:50:16 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --RGI5SXtLAkP0su1MurAnjgVLODcfEwHfh Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="5Qx7DBm88stbL9UxkI96qCHsHoUwHFJ6E"; protected-headers="v1" From: Douglas Roark To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Message-ID: <03831fcd-1fd5-b769-0b3b-41e996894e1f@vt.edu> Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Start time for BIP141 (segwit) References: <2d5abad7-cd9d-4396-4dd2-c687a1a808dc@vt.edu> <2034434.4WpKWoeOrB@strawberry> In-Reply-To: <2034434.4WpKWoeOrB@strawberry> --5Qx7DBm88stbL9UxkI96qCHsHoUwHFJ6E Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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=20 > long time, some wallets are taking a "wait and see" approach. If you l= ook=20 > at the page you linked[1], that is a very very sad state of affairs. Th= e=20 > vast majority is not ready. Would be interesting to get a more up-to-d= ate=20 > 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 fe= ature=20 > that will never be activated. The fact that we have a much safer altern= ative=20 > in the form of Flexible Transactions may mean it will not get activated= =2E We=20 > 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. --=20 --- Douglas Roark Cryptocurrency, network security, travel, and art. https://onename.com/droark joroark@vt.edu PGP key ID: 26623924 --5Qx7DBm88stbL9UxkI96qCHsHoUwHFJ6E-- --RGI5SXtLAkP0su1MurAnjgVLODcfEwHfh Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJYA9nwAAoJEEOBHRomYjkk0YkP/0ojQg0we3wI8J6ujw+AkGTo 0LpqtSC53cVwfVdV/+6lH4jWj54pf49R5ky+bkkSKU84NGIeLSAeE9IRJ6kVVRzs c87e6kohfbKj157QrtWCMyBGONAGvqRhYGmcuOy3Di+0skXjQPotbRS3Ztrmriy3 c9GwyGmp4a/1wr6KwJZJEkL3l4Vr4neWjYiVdicyJa6D7+yuPxNQrXDzf1s1NKvq xCjEJPULP9DUW74dheLaZPBr0QXGqnVoPE/RmtCGxkkxdZSwPuC41unaerSMd3bP nBIQ+zj/ZkyP6x1j/PiiICfn/Pn2EM96dtk0qZXBEuMkiYQ7Q//43arZx1AaBXx0 VdlE4HIZuTHJhmX/NRWrnmGSSZzyWnV453pE77+A5jAaVCKIe46o4QrcEWuPlQib JUEKX+ParF5848c4MM4P+I1l1xfTZcFFfucdpWI3Hwle3nrznnQ0Wp9l78/VXOte hENaWE48EHFjxRGg2Y05bCcH7TIxAvK/CDl6bMA1A09JfKx81cL4mPcZmFTiS3Qq Nl02vNufH2kv99fauia4sGGzlg1zzVpQzgYLtBlWOOk+1Ij3zbebBV42G5HmxdSN DXMyO9oATsAPdJ98U5mJGUREcPDGoYMMsh4jOHcgJRuBzGqA05GemA9sRAUd9NEe sIpOybF2XdkB/MqNXoV2 =2f0/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --RGI5SXtLAkP0su1MurAnjgVLODcfEwHfh--