📅 Original date posted:2016-10-16
📝 Original message:On Sunday, 16 October 2016 20:41:34 CEST Jorge Timón wrote:
> You keep insisting on "2 months after activation", but that's not how
> BIP9 works. We could at most change BIP9's initial date, but if those
> who haven't started to work on supporting segwit will keep waiting for
> activation, then changing the initial date won't be of any help to
> them can only delay those who are ready and waiting.
Then don't use BIP9...
Honestly, if the reason for the too-short-for-safety timespan is that you
want to use BIP9, then please take a step back and realize that SegWit is a
contriversial soft-fork that needs to be deployed in a way that is extra
safe because you can't roll the feature back a week after deployment.
All transactions that were made in the mean time turn into everyone-can-
spent transactions.
I stand by the minimum of 2 months. There is no reason to use BIP9 as it was
coded in an older client. That is an excuse that I don't buy.
--
Tom Zander
Blog: https://zander.github.io
Vlog: https://vimeo.com/channels/tomscryptochannel
Tom Zander [ARCHIVE] /
npub1mj…dxnq7
2023-06-07 17:54:02
in reply to nevent1q…562t
Author Public Key
npub1mju50kqcm07heu967fkq6h4kq666xgekc4yrldf7q52xx9vr8jnsrdxnq7Published at
2023-06-07 17:54:02Event JSON
{
"id": "8a6f547f3b1196efc1728b1061e63a69b086ebe6836b8327ca13b8556507b3fc",
"pubkey": "dcb947d818dbfd7cf0baf26c0d5eb606b5a32336c5483fb53e05146315833ca7",
"created_at": 1686160442,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"013851964e0006d489daca620e14c7c6c63358b79bff34620f9703c31bcdc761",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"d9b71e091023d3a8a8015631f91b3478f6ac7c6b0a2e95e656c2c8e62bf91787",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"498a711971f8a0194289aee037a4c481a99e731b5151724064973cc0e0b27c84"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2016-10-16\n📝 Original message:On Sunday, 16 October 2016 20:41:34 CEST Jorge Timón wrote:\n\u003e You keep insisting on \"2 months after activation\", but that's not how\n\u003e BIP9 works. We could at most change BIP9's initial date, but if those\n\u003e who haven't started to work on supporting segwit will keep waiting for\n\u003e activation, then changing the initial date won't be of any help to\n\u003e them can only delay those who are ready and waiting.\n\nThen don't use BIP9...\n\nHonestly, if the reason for the too-short-for-safety timespan is that you \nwant to use BIP9, then please take a step back and realize that SegWit is a \ncontriversial soft-fork that needs to be deployed in a way that is extra \nsafe because you can't roll the feature back a week after deployment.\nAll transactions that were made in the mean time turn into everyone-can-\nspent transactions.\n\nI stand by the minimum of 2 months. There is no reason to use BIP9 as it was \ncoded in an older client. That is an excuse that I don't buy.\n-- \nTom Zander\nBlog: https://zander.github.io\nVlog: https://vimeo.com/channels/tomscryptochannel",
"sig": "588823eb46a5b838481cdc540b15501f7578ed2a5868b4f0f32dc246e99e2cc4a64b6aca4844a8afe5ddc02d48c313dad7770af2b97c83ac7cf8e21ba5064ddb"
}