📅 Original date posted:2017-02-25
📝 Original message:On Feb 25, 2017 14:09, "Steve Davis via bitcoin-dev" <
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
Hi Peter,
I really, really don’t want to get into it but segwit has many aspects that
are less appealing, not least of which being the amount of time it would
take to reach the critical mass.
Surely there's a number of alternative approaches which could be explored,
even if only to make a fair assessment of a best response?
Any alternative to move us away from RIPEMD160 would require:
* A drafting of a softfork proposal, implementation, testing, review.
* A new address format
* Miners accepting the new consensus rules
* Wallets adopting the new address format, both on the sender side and
receiver side (which requires new signatures).
I.e., exactly the same as segwit, for which most of these are already done.
And it would still only apply to wallets adopting it.
--
Pieter
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20170225/e3856947/attachment-0001.html>;
Pieter Wuille [ARCHIVE] /
npub1tj…jtl6r
2023-06-07 17:56:46
in reply to nevent1q…nwu6
Author Public Key
npub1tjephawh7fdf6358jufuh5eyxwauzrjqa7qn50pglee4tayc2ntqcjtl6rSeen on
wss://relay.noswhere.comPublished at
2023-06-07 17:56:46Event JSON
{
"id": "4ad305f6ca71cee46ac03774cb93a1c4d91ae6e8f6bc288aa2f8803876d28d25",
"pubkey": "5cb21bf5d7f25a9d46879713cbd32433bbc10e40ef813a3c28fe7355f49854d6",
"created_at": 1686160606,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"37053a195373ca87d2cc167b4470872a0425d55bfe62c38a20deac2033060b94",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"e2ef7b9ada457306b1854dcedf81b67385b51e6b3b1050e2a2fc32847100f105",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"9a6b73449cedd35eb88283522be919f8cf94d5a720336c8e843c2dcd56d53e3c"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2017-02-25\n📝 Original message:On Feb 25, 2017 14:09, \"Steve Davis via bitcoin-dev\" \u003c\nbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\nHi Peter,\n\n\nI really, really don’t want to get into it but segwit has many aspects that\nare less appealing, not least of which being the amount of time it would\ntake to reach the critical mass.\n\nSurely there's a number of alternative approaches which could be explored,\neven if only to make a fair assessment of a best response?\n\n\nAny alternative to move us away from RIPEMD160 would require:\n* A drafting of a softfork proposal, implementation, testing, review.\n* A new address format\n* Miners accepting the new consensus rules\n* Wallets adopting the new address format, both on the sender side and\nreceiver side (which requires new signatures).\n\nI.e., exactly the same as segwit, for which most of these are already done.\nAnd it would still only apply to wallets adopting it.\n\n-- \nPieter\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20170225/e3856947/attachment-0001.html\u003e",
"sig": "343b0f239bc6609dc316d8722c167225fc80ce66c876c23aab8353b929eba98ef1a9b2b8d23ca3bd407dbd8ba4932656b71e203370e0933fdd8913db4c4a2445"
}