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 58B1ABBE for ; Wed, 10 May 2017 15:26:12 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-qk0-f175.google.com (mail-qk0-f175.google.com [209.85.220.175]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8F5981D7 for ; Wed, 10 May 2017 15:26:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-qk0-f175.google.com with SMTP id a72so33267756qkj.2 for ; Wed, 10 May 2017 08:26:08 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=9itEH361jwNGNM6JP7L4ma6lNEKaxDhl2DgUyWIyZSE=; b=SlbzUNrkaFGQPnbU3Jj7tL1rSo3/Cnb5e+j5GxOMcEWpsIm56M2/x01TXOYDOgkOkh Qh8B4QN305a+6pz4c8YtFHkQ+dyNKbpxv/LRQsS1FXN0Yz0ZMfUDoG8w7muSlNdd0R0e DjOo72Gv+O4D57jAMEErARM+0JzcMsVvTUFaLhPIEJl0UfvbTX0SJqdEtgPkIM7ilWUR Nr2CZVe3rGcMSq5V+wEezq39V+7whDZdIQRWsHxJp5rD/RdhLAYPSW9vBMT2tNmFwa3C CQ7Ao/vxEJHGYvqaBlYGRiHnUUMnWIgW0hIFrUoLJmKHdAYopou3kLBoQauWmrWppKoA HL+Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=9itEH361jwNGNM6JP7L4ma6lNEKaxDhl2DgUyWIyZSE=; b=XvJyhg8NWU2MY/F8f8CVbfkcSa8T7jQAWUxQy/D5Ia9GBL3cBxSu5yfF8h1Ct+nKTF yS5xYDaRFxV5SJNXlslshXLEBAI66McXeyxHTBzeaHQA12Nmu3byLlJpkuTwkBR7VNBO iqMFpNA7KxCETGo/fUNtoje1Rip7F7Bn7AIVR43hJQhaKjErRXy0bbTEsyIANulOA/KF UlZp3MuAINd7Zfw0q+c1pijcdY69NKm/MS4FOeJ0tjtbtnkm7vhKH+wqdG4Z54YnQZHJ 4MqOMbMJqA42uQgO4csKfOJYoLUKGyC9mIKxXSHbF0NuQqoR5aqd5EH4ovgSwEgRbnfp uD/Q== X-Gm-Message-State: AODbwcDnCtjOP130he69Fen0rQOVI2rJapALKdV1agBJuaRyj6Kwt7K0 YLUmZ0BtzZ+Gz10tomhYY/ISH+iRVA== X-Received: by 10.55.160.18 with SMTP id j18mr5902276qke.116.1494429967780; Wed, 10 May 2017 08:26:07 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.12.165.132 with HTTP; Wed, 10 May 2017 08:25:27 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Sergio Demian Lerner Date: Wed, 10 May 2017 12:25:27 -0300 Message-ID: To: Matt Corallo Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c05d50e5f1672054f2d1741 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM autolearn=no version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Cc: bitcoin-dev Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Some real-world results about the current Segwit Discount 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: Wed, 10 May 2017 15:26:12 -0000 --94eb2c05d50e5f1672054f2d1741 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 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 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 > > wrote: > > > > On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 7:42 PM, Matt Corallo > > > wrote: > > > at beast. > > > > Rawr. > > > > > --94eb2c05d50e5f1672054f2d1741 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Jaja. But no shit. Not perfect maybe, but Bitcoin was neve= r perfect. It has always been good enough. And at the beginning it was quit= e simple. Simple enough it allowed gradual improvements that anyone with so= me technical background could understand. Now we need a full website to exp= lain an improvement.
But this is becoming more and more out of topic.

On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 11:05 AM, Matt Corallo &l= t;lf-lists@ma= ttcorallo.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 Seg= wit as
> it is..
>
> This is motivated by the idea that a consensual HF in the current stat= e
> would have greater chance of acceptance if it changes the minimum numb= er
> of lines of code.
>
>
>
> On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 5:13 PM, Gregory Maxwell <greg@xiph.org
> <mailto:greg@xiph.org>> wrote:
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 7:42 PM, Matt Corallo
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0<= lf-lists@mattcorallo.com &l= t;mailto:lf-lists@mattcorallo.<= wbr>com>> wrote:
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0> at beast.
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0Rawr.
>
>

--94eb2c05d50e5f1672054f2d1741--