📅 Original date posted:2017-07-14
📝 Original message:On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 01:04:19AM +0000, Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 6:17 AM, Dan Libby via bitcoin-dev
> <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> > Up to now, I have purposefully been running bitcoin releases prior to
> > 0.13.1 as a way to avoid the (possible) segwit activation, at least
> > until such time as I personally am comfortable with it.
>
> It is not simple to do so correctly, I couldn't tell you off the top
> of my head; a number of things must be changed it isn't as simple as
> disabling the activiation because of the segwit P2P changes. Nor is
> it a supported configuration. Even if it were now, it wouldn't be one
> we'd continue to support in the future after segwit is active, as
> we're likely to drop deployment/compat code.
And this attitude is why bitcoin-core is going to get dropped and,
hopefully, instead of just one code to rule them all, we will have
good specifications and multiple competing implementations.
> Can you explain why you wish to do this? It should have absolutely no
> adverse impact on you-- if you don't use segwit, you don't use it-- it
> may be the case that there is some confusion about the implications
> that I could clear up for you... or suggest alternatives that might
> achieve your goals.
One of the significant adverse impacts of Segwit is the following:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/validation.cpp#L2861
When viewed on Github, less than one third of the consensus-critical
code is visible on-screen.
This is a maintenance and readability nightmare, in my opinion. There
are many good reasons why giving *users* the ability to firewall off
that code, maybe even with #ifdefs, as ugly as they are, would provide
some much better confidence that one is indeed, not running segwit.
I suspect it would help the community a great deal in comfort level
if this code were easier to read and used some type of coding standard
in which the default github view on the average browser shows all the
code without having a "hidden feature" that requires scrolling that
has no obvious UI indication you even need to scroll.
Troy Benjegerdes [ARCHIVE] /
npub1m6…rdjn5
2023-06-07 18:04:29
in reply to nevent1q…222f
Author Public Key
npub1m6p5kgcd428x6pxyfege98zjmlwrdhp0gyz6pdnsvrvalscddnxqurdjn5Seen on
wss://relay.noswhere.comPublished at
2023-06-07 18:04:29Event JSON
{
"id": "fe3a5234474f2fbcb9cf68fbcebd77e9710546c606e035bb0498b531c00c4d06",
"pubkey": "de834b230daa8e6d04c44e51929c52dfdc36dc2f4105a0b67060d9dfc30d6ccc",
"created_at": 1686161069,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"c3417a9d5ad76947acf26c6783addd471ca3bcc5d3ed57deae65203b0eaf5238",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"92346f29a458a8be79b4b58c39203a1bcce91a893d3942097a77c365de0ceac4",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"bee276d1ae3341411bf36280d4da29fe701581dff23dcd2a5d7ac65535f7d8f9"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2017-07-14\n📝 Original message:On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 01:04:19AM +0000, Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 6:17 AM, Dan Libby via bitcoin-dev\n\u003e \u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \u003e Hi!\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e Up to now, I have purposefully been running bitcoin releases prior to\n\u003e \u003e 0.13.1 as a way to avoid the (possible) segwit activation, at least\n\u003e \u003e until such time as I personally am comfortable with it.\n\u003e \n\u003e It is not simple to do so correctly, I couldn't tell you off the top\n\u003e of my head; a number of things must be changed it isn't as simple as\n\u003e disabling the activiation because of the segwit P2P changes. Nor is\n\u003e it a supported configuration. Even if it were now, it wouldn't be one\n\u003e we'd continue to support in the future after segwit is active, as\n\u003e we're likely to drop deployment/compat code.\n \nAnd this attitude is why bitcoin-core is going to get dropped and,\nhopefully, instead of just one code to rule them all, we will have\ngood specifications and multiple competing implementations.\n\n\u003e Can you explain why you wish to do this? It should have absolutely no\n\u003e adverse impact on you-- if you don't use segwit, you don't use it-- it\n\u003e may be the case that there is some confusion about the implications\n\u003e that I could clear up for you... or suggest alternatives that might\n\u003e achieve your goals.\n\nOne of the significant adverse impacts of Segwit is the following:\n\nhttps://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/validation.cpp#L2861\n\nWhen viewed on Github, less than one third of the consensus-critical\ncode is visible on-screen.\n\nThis is a maintenance and readability nightmare, in my opinion. There\nare many good reasons why giving *users* the ability to firewall off\nthat code, maybe even with #ifdefs, as ugly as they are, would provide\nsome much better confidence that one is indeed, not running segwit.\n\nI suspect it would help the community a great deal in comfort level\nif this code were easier to read and used some type of coding standard\nin which the default github view on the average browser shows all the\ncode without having a \"hidden feature\" that requires scrolling that\nhas no obvious UI indication you even need to scroll.",
"sig": "2e6161629273a301fa9c0c34bacec388d59b9bbf53ff6b6dcf3a5cc550d34e9b78735133ab7bcb8569a4b743a646098334448f7954217aa9e3f4eeb72a38c81e"
}