log☇︎
217 entries in 0.474s
adlai: what happens with segwit is that people who do opt-in, have significantly less security in the face of miner defection
adlai: copypaste: you may want to read https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-December/012014.html as well, it explains possible failure modes for people who don't recognize softforks such as segwit
adlai: if you run a full node which has no recognition of segwit, you can still operate normally. segwit is dangerous for a) users of non-full nodes who think they have "SPV security" (whatever that may mean), and b) everybody, if enough utxos use segwit that miner defection becomes a real risk ☟︎
shinohai: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3zu8bh/til_in_2016_you_cannot_prevent_soft_forks_in/cyqn13n <<< "I haven't yet heard one person against SegWit, no matter their stance on raising the block size cap." LOLOLOL
shinohai: No official trb thread on bitcointalk, all this XT, bigger blocks, and segwit nonsense there too. :/
BingoBoingo: Quent: Nah, the special segwit transactions are noise until proven otherwise
ben_vulpes: ;;later tell adlai that post predated my ever hearing about segwit
BingoBoingo: "I believe that soft-fork segwit can help us out of this deadlock and get us going again." - A Negative https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-December/012090.html
assbot: Logged on 19-12-2015 23:49:50; punkman: the basic idea of segwit is not bad, should have been there from the start, without the "softfork" complexity, no ANYONECANPAY-looking crap, without making another merkle tree, without blocksize discounts and enlargements, without planning to use it as a vehicle for future "painless" shitgnovation
punkman: the basic idea of segwit is not bad, should have been there from the start, without the "softfork" complexity, no ANYONECANPAY-looking crap, without making another merkle tree, without blocksize discounts and enlargements, without planning to use it as a vehicle for future "painless" shitgnovation ☟︎
BingoBoingo: Thermos: "No, it basically already has consensus from dev/expert community because it solves so many problems in one go and is pretty simple to understand if you know how Bitcoin works. There are no reasonable objections to SegWit AFAIK." https://archive.is/Q60SC#selection-2433.0-2433.227
BingoBoingo: <pete_dushenski> ;;later tell BingoBoingo so chuck lee makes it an entire thousand words without sounding like a complete momo, only to finish with "P.S. I’m currently in favor of scaling Bitcoin via 2–4–8, SegWit, and LN." like, wtf. << But he also took the castle analogy from a contravex it seems
pete_dushenski: ;;later tell BingoBoingo so chuck lee makes it an entire thousand words without sounding like a complete momo, only to finish with "P.S. I’m currently in favor of scaling Bitcoin via 2–4–8, SegWit, and LN." like, wtf.
adlai: as far as i can tell, the only person who mentions hardforking segwit after this idea is your favorite costume artist
assbot: Logged on 11-12-2015 08:41:57; adlai: a properly done segwit softfork could actually result in a blocksize decrease for the non-segwit blockchain
adlai: a properly done segwit softfork could actually result in a blocksize decrease for the non-segwit blockchain ☟︎
punkman: https://github.com/ElementsProject/elementsproject.github.io/tree/master#segregated-witness > https://github.com/sipa/bitcoin/commits/segwit