{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1m230cem2yh3mtdzkg32qhj73uytgkyg5ylxsu083n3tpjnajxx4qqa2np2","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1m230cem2yh3mtdzkg32qhj73uytgkyg5ylxsu083n3tpjnajxx4qqa2np2","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2016-01-08\n📝 Original message:On Thu, Jan 07, 2016 at 08:54:00PM -0500, Gavin Andresen via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e ---\n\u003e \n\u003e I'm really disappointed with the \"Here's the spec, take it or leave it\"\n\u003e attitude. What's the point of having a BIP process if the discussion just\n\u003e comes down to \"We think more is better. We don't care what you think.\"\n\nI'll point out that I personally raised an issue with segpregated\nwitnesses quite recently - my concern that it could make validationless\nmining easier and more profitable(1). Neither Pieter Wuille nor Gregory\nMaxwell believed my concern to be important at first in private\ncommunication. However, it was still discussed on IRC, with Pieter,\nGreg, and others contributing valuable input on the problem and my\nproposed fix. Right now I think the next step for me is to write the\ncode to implement my fix and submit a pull-req against the segwit\nbranch.\n\nI certainly wouldn't describe that experience as \"Here's the spec, take\nit or leave it; We don't what what you think.\"\n\n1) \"Segregated witnesses and validationless mining\",\n    Peter Todd, Dec 23 2015, Bitcoin-dev mailing list,\n    http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-December/012103.html\n\n-- \n'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org\n000000000000000004aea2cfdb89c4816b7a42208dca1f3cfd66a1c9b5df4506\n-------------- next part --------------\nA non-text attachment was scrubbed...\nName: signature.asc\nType: application/pgp-signature\nSize: 650 bytes\nDesc: Digital signature\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20160108/d491f65e/attachment.sig\u003e"}