rich1.0npub1fx98zxt3lzspjs5f4msr0fxysx5euucm29ghysryju7vpc9j0jzqtcl2d8https://nostr.ae/npub1fx98zxt3lzspjs5f4msr0fxysx5euucm29ghysryju7vpc9j0jzqtcl2d8njumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2015-12-09 📝 Original message:On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 7:29 AM, Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > What was being discussed was the location of the witness commitment; > which is consensus critical regardless of where it is placed. Should > it be placed in an available location which is compatible with the > existing network, or should the block hashing data structure > immediately be changed in an incompatible way to accommodate it in > order to satisfy an ascetic sense of purity and to make fraud proofs > somewhat smaller? >From this question one could think that when you said "we can do the cleanup hardfork later" earlier you didn't really meant it. And that you will oppose to that hardfork later just like you are opposing to it now. As said I disagree that making a softfork first and then move the commitment is less disruptive (because people will need to adapt their software twice), but if the intention is to never do the second part then of course I agree it would be less disruptive. How long after the softfork would you like to do the hardfork? 1 year after the softfork? 2 years? never?