{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1pl6kcz00s7wgn6syh73dta0qm9sqpmtw4adv8rnm2w9fmynkw45sayj0hj","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1pl6kcz00s7wgn6syh73dta0qm9sqpmtw4adv8rnm2w9fmynkw45sayj0hj","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2015-12-08\n📝 Original message:On Dec 9, 2015, at 7:48 AM, Luke Dashjr \u003cluke at dashjr.org\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e How about we pursue the SegWit softfork, and at the same time* work on a\n\u003e hardfork which will simplify the proofs and reduce the kludgeyness of merge-\n\u003e mining in general? Then, if the hardfork is ready before the softfork, they\n\u003e can both go together, but if not, we aren't stuck delaying the improvements of\n\u003e SegWit until the hardfork is completed.\n\nSo that all our code that parses the blockchain needs to be able to find the sigwit data in both places? That doesn't really sound like an improvement to me. Why not just do it as a hard fork? They're really not that hard to do.\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20151209/96a8d6a7/attachment.html\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nA non-text attachment was scrubbed...\nName: signature.asc\nType: application/pgp-signature\nSize: 496 bytes\nDesc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20151209/96a8d6a7/attachment.sig\u003e"}