📅 Original date posted:2016-10-16
📝 Original message:On Sunday, 16 October 2016 12:49:47 CEST Douglas Roark via bitcoin-dev
wrote:
> It's not the website's fault if wallet devs aren't updating their
> statuses. Besides, "WIP" can mean an awful lot of things.
As I said, it would be nice to get an updated version so we can see more
than 20% readyness of wallets.
The wallet devs not caring enough to update the status should be a worrying
sign, though.
> A lot of devs have already worked on SegWit support. This has been
> covered. Even if they don't support SegWit, the wallets will probably
> work just fine. (For awhile, Armory did crash when trying to read SegWit
SegWit is probably the most disruptive and most invasive change ever made to
Bitcoin. We have miners actively saying they don't like it and this makes it
a contriversial upgrade which means the network may split and other issues.
Your "wallets will probably work just fine" comment is honestly not the
answer to make people put faith in the way that this is being vetted and
checked...
> Also, once again, FlexTrans is off-topic.
Its an alternative and brought up in that vain. Nothing more. Feel free to
respond to the BIP discussion (134) right on this list if you have any
opinions on it. They will be on-topic there. No problems have been found so
far.
Lets get back to the topic. Having a longer fallow period is a simple way to
be safe. Your comments make me even more scared that safety is not taken
into account the way it would.
People are not even acknowledging the damage a contriversial soft fork of
the scope and magnitude of SegWit can have, and a simple request to extend
the fallow time for safety is really not a big deal.
SegWit has been in development for 18 months or so, what is a couple of
extra week??
I would just like to ask people to take the safety of Bitcoin serious. This
discussion and refusal to extend the safety period is not a good sign.
--
Tom Zander
Blog: https://zander.github.io
Vlog: https://vimeo.com/channels/tomscryptochannel
Tom Zander [ARCHIVE] /
npub1mj…dxnq7
2023-06-07 17:54:04
in reply to nevent1q…47d7
Author Public Key
npub1mju50kqcm07heu967fkq6h4kq666xgekc4yrldf7q52xx9vr8jnsrdxnq7Published at
2023-06-07 17:54:04Event JSON
{
"id": "a5ad56296e94936f9bcea0b5429193935e9494662f1dfa03af28205c3edb4164",
"pubkey": "dcb947d818dbfd7cf0baf26c0d5eb606b5a32336c5483fb53e05146315833ca7",
"created_at": 1686160444,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"013851964e0006d489daca620e14c7c6c63358b79bff34620f9703c31bcdc761",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"eefd63786b27a2117d0f0908b455aec08542d07945da5eb7f53acbb15e185713",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"533e45ffeb94bc88c14af70b25994838170e7910c1273994b63bce468eac2230"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2016-10-16\n📝 Original message:On Sunday, 16 October 2016 12:49:47 CEST Douglas Roark via bitcoin-dev \nwrote:\n\u003e It's not the website's fault if wallet devs aren't updating their\n\u003e statuses. Besides, \"WIP\" can mean an awful lot of things.\n\nAs I said, it would be nice to get an updated version so we can see more \nthan 20% readyness of wallets.\nThe wallet devs not caring enough to update the status should be a worrying \nsign, though.\n\n\u003e A lot of devs have already worked on SegWit support. This has been\n\u003e covered. Even if they don't support SegWit, the wallets will probably\n\u003e work just fine. (For awhile, Armory did crash when trying to read SegWit\n\nSegWit is probably the most disruptive and most invasive change ever made to \nBitcoin. We have miners actively saying they don't like it and this makes it \na contriversial upgrade which means the network may split and other issues.\n\nYour \"wallets will probably work just fine\" comment is honestly not the \nanswer to make people put faith in the way that this is being vetted and \nchecked...\n\n\u003e Also, once again, FlexTrans is off-topic. \n\nIts an alternative and brought up in that vain. Nothing more. Feel free to \nrespond to the BIP discussion (134) right on this list if you have any \nopinions on it. They will be on-topic there. No problems have been found so \nfar.\n\nLets get back to the topic. Having a longer fallow period is a simple way to \nbe safe. Your comments make me even more scared that safety is not taken \ninto account the way it would.\n\nPeople are not even acknowledging the damage a contriversial soft fork of \nthe scope and magnitude of SegWit can have, and a simple request to extend \nthe fallow time for safety is really not a big deal.\nSegWit has been in development for 18 months or so, what is a couple of \nextra week??\n\nI would just like to ask people to take the safety of Bitcoin serious. This \ndiscussion and refusal to extend the safety period is not a good sign.\n-- \nTom Zander\nBlog: https://zander.github.io\nVlog: https://vimeo.com/channels/tomscryptochannel",
"sig": "49ada1385d4b5dad3c32493ac519d6479f2c4de48d5516558001331b348b85a5725730253a70705cbff827ec8ffbe4cc8e349f8aee862cff15e6148446a44adf"
}