📅 Original date posted:2017-05-26
📝 Original message:A more important consideration than segwit's timeout is when code can be
released, which will no doubt be several months after SegWit's current
timeout.
Greg's proposed 6 months seems much more reasonable to me, assuming its
still many months after the formal release of code implementing it.
Matt
On 05/24/17 04:26, Rusty Russell via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>
> writes:
>> Based on how fast we saw segwit adoption, why is the BIP149 timeout so
>> far in the future?
>>
>> It seems to me that it could be six months after release and hit the
>> kind of density required to make a stable transition.
>
> Agreed, I would suggest 16th December, 2017 (otherwise, it should be
> 16th January 2018; during EOY holidays seems a bad idea).
>
> This means this whole debacle has delayed segwit exactly 1 (2) month(s)
> beyond what we'd have if it used BIP8 in the first place.
>
> Cheers,
> Rusty.
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
Matt Corallo [ARCHIVE] /
npub1e4…jxmcu
2023-06-07 18:01:46
in reply to nevent1q…v4mt
Author Public Key
npub1e46n428mcyfwznl7nlsf6d3s7rhlwm9x3cmkuqzt3emmdpadmkaqqjxmcuPublished at
2023-06-07 18:01:46Event JSON
{
"id": "1dcbd5e129a7c8adb451d73f6336728b9bfa1edc2b725a13d7600ab765a706cc",
"pubkey": "cd753aa8fbc112e14ffe9fe09d3630f0eff76ca68e376e004b8e77b687adddba",
"created_at": 1686160906,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"93f07ef10706bb8159b360dc2db60dc9840624553b7985cf039bd4a6af403b51",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"9b9bddebf7a78db6a3355f642ced93f0b9e4cb04cef9bbf41ca47e056fd2fac7",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"13bd8c1c5e3b3508a07c92598647160b11ab0deef4c452098e223e443c1ca425"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2017-05-26\n📝 Original message:A more important consideration than segwit's timeout is when code can be\nreleased, which will no doubt be several months after SegWit's current\ntimeout.\n\nGreg's proposed 6 months seems much more reasonable to me, assuming its\nstill many months after the formal release of code implementing it.\n\nMatt\n\nOn 05/24/17 04:26, Rusty Russell via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev \u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e\n\u003e writes:\n\u003e\u003e Based on how fast we saw segwit adoption, why is the BIP149 timeout so\n\u003e\u003e far in the future?\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e It seems to me that it could be six months after release and hit the\n\u003e\u003e kind of density required to make a stable transition.\n\u003e \n\u003e Agreed, I would suggest 16th December, 2017 (otherwise, it should be\n\u003e 16th January 2018; during EOY holidays seems a bad idea).\n\u003e \n\u003e This means this whole debacle has delayed segwit exactly 1 (2) month(s)\n\u003e beyond what we'd have if it used BIP8 in the first place.\n\u003e \n\u003e Cheers,\n\u003e Rusty.\n\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e",
"sig": "6aba7a175b1db6ef995cbd8f9df9ea5ae46ca8128ef7093f9847ad34163274d906c9002b3b1814f692a7cf1f55d395a2e28c9d22c4ae98bea3dd4163178bb999"
}