rich1.0npub1pl6kcz00s7wgn6syh73dta0qm9sqpmtw4adv8rnm2w9fmynkw45sayj0hjhttps://nostr.ae/npub1pl6kcz00s7wgn6syh73dta0qm9sqpmtw4adv8rnm2w9fmynkw45sayj0hjnjumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2015-12-08 📝 Original message:On Dec 9, 2015, at 7:48 AM, Luke Dashjr <luke at dashjr.org> wrote: > How about we pursue the SegWit softfork, and at the same time* work on a > hardfork which will simplify the proofs and reduce the kludgeyness of merge- > mining in general? Then, if the hardfork is ready before the softfork, they > can both go together, but if not, we aren't stuck delaying the improvements of > SegWit until the hardfork is completed. So 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20151209/96a8d6a7/attachment.html> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 496 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20151209/96a8d6a7/attachment.sig>