📅 Original date posted:2016-10-16
📝 Original message:It's controversial not contriversial.
And it isn't controversial except among a small clique, which you seem
to be the sole representative of here. It might be time to consider
unsubscribing (again) if you don't seem to know when to shut up and the
moderators are letting you go on an inappropriate crusade here.
On Sun, 2016-10-16 at 22:58 +0200, Tom Zander via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> 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.
gb [ARCHIVE] /
npub1j0…u0kje
2023-06-07 17:54:04
in reply to nevent1q…rmk0
Author Public Key
npub1j0cee8lvw7v75c0vfsgfpt5xv8qmr3xzhlwpg9lestngmzwu0u9s6u0kjePublished at
2023-06-07 17:54:04Event JSON
{
"id": "111c247ad580291ff707f307314f9e314240e18129ac8ddf7c9aa10939d4c19e",
"pubkey": "93f19c9fec7799ea61ec4c1090ae8661c1b1c4c2bfdc1417f982e68d89dc7f0b",
"created_at": 1686160444,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"013851964e0006d489daca620e14c7c6c63358b79bff34620f9703c31bcdc761",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"a5ad56296e94936f9bcea0b5429193935e9494662f1dfa03af28205c3edb4164",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"dcb947d818dbfd7cf0baf26c0d5eb606b5a32336c5483fb53e05146315833ca7"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2016-10-16\n📝 Original message:It's controversial not contriversial.\n\nAnd it isn't controversial except among a small clique, which you seem\nto be the sole representative of here. It might be time to consider\nunsubscribing (again) if you don't seem to know when to shut up and the\nmoderators are letting you go on an inappropriate crusade here.\n\nOn Sun, 2016-10-16 at 22:58 +0200, Tom Zander via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e On Sunday, 16 October 2016 12:49:47 CEST Douglas Roark via bitcoin-dev \n\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \u003e It's not the website's fault if wallet devs aren't updating their\n\u003e \u003e statuses. Besides, \"WIP\" can mean an awful lot of things.\n\u003e \n\u003e As I said, it would be nice to get an updated version so we can see more \n\u003e than 20% readyness of wallets.\n\u003e The wallet devs not caring enough to update the status should be a worrying \n\u003e sign, though.\n\u003e \n\u003e \u003e A lot of devs have already worked on SegWit support. This has been\n\u003e \u003e covered. Even if they don't support SegWit, the wallets will probably\n\u003e \u003e work just fine. (For awhile, Armory did crash when trying to read SegWit\n\u003e \n\u003e SegWit is probably the most disruptive and most invasive change ever made to \n\u003e Bitcoin. We have miners actively saying they don't like it and this makes it \n\u003e a contriversial upgrade which means the network may split and other issues.\n\u003e \n\u003e Your \"wallets will probably work just fine\" comment is honestly not the \n\u003e answer to make people put faith in the way that this is being vetted and \n\u003e checked...\n\u003e \n\u003e \u003e Also, once again, FlexTrans is off-topic. \n\u003e \n\u003e Its an alternative and brought up in that vain. Nothing more. Feel free to \n\u003e respond to the BIP discussion (134) right on this list if you have any \n\u003e opinions on it. They will be on-topic there. No problems have been found so \n\u003e far.\n\u003e \n\u003e Lets get back to the topic. Having a longer fallow period is a simple way to \n\u003e be safe. Your comments make me even more scared that safety is not taken \n\u003e into account the way it would.\n\u003e \n\u003e People are not even acknowledging the damage a contriversial soft fork of \n\u003e the scope and magnitude of SegWit can have, and a simple request to extend \n\u003e the fallow time for safety is really not a big deal.\n\u003e SegWit has been in development for 18 months or so, what is a couple of \n\u003e extra week??\n\u003e \n\u003e I would just like to ask people to take the safety of Bitcoin serious. This \n\u003e discussion and refusal to extend the safety period is not a good sign.",
"sig": "885f42d00decd3a6066c191e0c577f3b57fb4af7e85772b4d3fa189b849b4860f2824131886e2e014958135c7e0b64e37c02df63e2c01f461e10fbb4245e8615"
}