📅 Original date posted:2017-05-10
📝 Original message: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 at 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 at 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 at xiph.org
>> > <mailto:greg at xiph.org>> wrote:
>> >
>> > On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 7:42 PM, Matt Corallo
>> > <lf-lists at mattcorallo.com <mailto:lf-lists at mattcorallo.com>>
>wrote:
>> > > at beast.
>> >
>> > Rawr.
>> >
>> >
>>
Matt Corallo [ARCHIVE] /
npub1e4…jxmcu
2023-06-07 18:01:00
in reply to nevent1q…hfc4
Author Public Key
npub1e46n428mcyfwznl7nlsf6d3s7rhlwm9x3cmkuqzt3emmdpadmkaqqjxmcuPublished at
2023-06-07 18:01:00Event JSON
{
"id": "946aacb22eeebb75055850fc96bbeb28d364872eeb94e48ba8fe051875f25f72",
"pubkey": "cd753aa8fbc112e14ffe9fe09d3630f0eff76ca68e376e004b8e77b687adddba",
"created_at": 1686160860,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"4aacc31e765e9e31a3d8eb41d296ff5dc213462528e2e5335cec5ccb80e70465",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"046c50ce46b14895302c06185d5cb89ef9f4bce0f73898eed4eb26d07345508f",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"4b38603408f5be002091210e869a4ca86fc2aa1ffd0871036a0668068ee626ee"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2017-05-10\n📝 Original message: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.\n\nOn May 10, 2017 11:25:27 AM EDT, Sergio Demian Lerner \u003csergio.d.lerner at gmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003eJaja. But no shit. Not perfect maybe, but Bitcoin was never perfect. It\n\u003ehas\n\u003ealways been good enough. And at the beginning it was quite simple.\n\u003eSimple\n\u003eenough it allowed gradual improvements that anyone with some technical\n\u003ebackground could understand. Now we need a full website to explain an\n\u003eimprovement.\n\u003eBut this is becoming more and more out of topic.\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003eOn Wed, May 10, 2017 at 11:05 AM, Matt Corallo\n\u003e\u003clf-lists at mattcorallo.com\u003e\n\u003ewrote:\n\u003e\n\u003e\u003e I'm highly unconvinced of this point. Sure, you can change fewer\n\u003elines\n\u003e\u003e of code, but if the result is, lets be honest, shit, how do you\n\u003ebelieve\n\u003e\u003e its going to have a higher chance of getting acceptance from the\n\u003ebroader\n\u003e\u003e community? I think you're over-optimizing in the wrong direction.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e Matt\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e On 05/09/17 20:58, Sergio Demian Lerner wrote:\n\u003e\u003e \u003e I agree with you Matt.\n\u003e\u003e \u003e I'm artificially limiting myself to changing the parameters of\n\u003eSegwit as\n\u003e\u003e \u003e it is..\n\u003e\u003e \u003e\n\u003e\u003e \u003e This is motivated by the idea that a consensual HF in the current\n\u003estate\n\u003e\u003e \u003e would have greater chance of acceptance if it changes the minimum\n\u003enumber\n\u003e\u003e \u003e of lines of code.\n\u003e\u003e \u003e\n\u003e\u003e \u003e\n\u003e\u003e \u003e\n\u003e\u003e \u003e On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 5:13 PM, Gregory Maxwell \u003cgreg at xiph.org\n\u003e\u003e \u003e \u003cmailto:greg at xiph.org\u003e\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\u003e \u003e\n\u003e\u003e \u003e On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 7:42 PM, Matt Corallo\n\u003e\u003e \u003e \u003clf-lists at mattcorallo.com \u003cmailto:lf-lists at mattcorallo.com\u003e\u003e\n\u003ewrote:\n\u003e\u003e \u003e \u003e at beast.\n\u003e\u003e \u003e\n\u003e\u003e \u003e Rawr.\n\u003e\u003e \u003e\n\u003e\u003e \u003e\n\u003e\u003e",
"sig": "ce84e9b8f02865f8fdb445fa3ae83389c9ed8d8c119b8f964a1a52582771dd061491b64952372d08c6b7b42b8fd8784d597c1a62aec52be7a63faa45cadecc27"
}