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.lerner@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-lists@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 <greg@xiph.org
>> > <mailto:greg@xiph.org>> wrote:
>> >
>> >     On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 7:42 PM, Matt Corallo
>> >     <lf-lists@mattcorallo.com <mailto:lf-lists@mattcorallo.com>>
>wrote:
>> >     > at beast.
>> >
>> >     Rawr.
>> >
>> >
>>