From: Tom Zander <tomz@freedommail.ch>
To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2016 22:58:31 +0200
Message-ID: <7939356.11nSWPlGYM@strawberry>
In-Reply-To: <03831fcd-1fd5-b769-0b3b-41e996894e1f@vt.edu>
References: <CAPg+sBjdyJ297-GZvVc-wQwCEX-cRAGTNWDd92SgVzdCcD_ZMw@mail.gmail.com>
	<2034434.4WpKWoeOrB@strawberry>
	<03831fcd-1fd5-b769-0b3b-41e996894e1f@vt.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Start time for BIP141 (segwit)
Precedence: list

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.
-- 
Tom Zander
Blog: https://zander.github.io
Vlog: https://vimeo.com/channels/tomscryptochannel