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 8A2D2C7C for ; Fri, 26 May 2017 14:54:10 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mx-out01.mykolab.com (mx.kolabnow.com [95.128.36.1]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 04C2EAD for ; Fri, 26 May 2017 14:54:08 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at kolabnow.com X-Spam-Score: -2.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 Received: from mx03.mykolab.com (mx03.mykolab.com [10.20.7.101]) by mx-out01.mykolab.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6727961BEC; Fri, 26 May 2017 16:54:05 +0200 (CEST) From: Tom Zander To: Erik Aronesty Date: Fri, 26 May 2017 16:54:03 +0200 Message-ID: <2558127.44xyt0tXJh@strawberry> In-Reply-To: References: <2575282.hbjRTIzDqY@strawberry> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 26 May 2017 14:58:21 +0000 Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Emergency Deployment of SegWit as a partial mitigation of CVE-2017-9230 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: Fri, 26 May 2017 14:54:10 -0000 On Friday, 26 May 2017 16:39:30 CEST Erik Aronesty wrote: > Linking a bit4 MASF with a bit4 "lock in of a hard fork in 6 months" is > something that will simply never happen for basic engineering reasons. The modifications to Bitcoin Core would take at most a day to do, plus a we= ek=20 to test. I=E2=80=99m not very happy with the full compromise myself, but can we plea= se not=20 stomp on actual progress with nebulous problems? I mean, you want SegWit, right? > Claiming that miners support segwit is disingenuous ... considering that > if they supported it, they would be signaling for it today... instead of > distracting the community with fake proposals that have no peer-reviewed > code. The nature of a compromise like the one that happened in New York is that=20 both parties do something they are not the most happy with in exchange for= =20 the thing they want. Miners have agreed to the SegWit part of this compromise. Calling that=20 disingenuous is not helpful... =2D-=20 Tom Zander Blog: https://zander.github.io Vlog: https://vimeo.com/channels/tomscryptochannel