>Criticizing 148 without suggesting a specific alternative leaves the community in disarray.

I really disagree with this sentiment, you don't need to provide alternatives to criticize a technical proposal. I don't like this "active segwit at all costs" theme that has been going around the community. I am a fan of segwit, but we shouldn't push things through in an unsafe manner.

>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.

This seems like a lot of reckless hand waving to me.

Food for thought, why are we rejecting *all* blocks that do not signal segwit? Can't we just reject blocks that *do not* signal segwit, but *do* contain segwit transactions? It seems silly to me that if a miner mines a block with all pre segwit txs to reject that block. Am I missing something here?

-Chris

On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 11:50 AM, praxeology_guy via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
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