To: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>, Gregory Maxwell <greg@xiph.org>,
	Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
References: <CAAS2fgQNPvEuta0KubeDetgYxGhWvdGK10jig0y4ayv0EvZPLw@mail.gmail.com>
	<87r2ze2833.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>
From: Matt Corallo <lf-lists@mattcorallo.com>
Message-ID: <63d03825-da9b-328d-56b8-0d062f3e0c62@mattcorallo.com>
Date: Fri, 26 May 2017 20:04:58 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
	Thunderbird/52.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <87r2ze2833.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP149 timeout-- why so far in the future?
Precedence: list

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@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@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>