rich1.0npub1m230cem2yh3mtdzkg32qhj73uytgkyg5ylxsu083n3tpjnajxx4qqa2np2https://nostr.ae/npub1m230cem2yh3mtdzkg32qhj73uytgkyg5ylxsu083n3tpjnajxx4qqa2np2njumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2016-01-08 📝 Original message:On Thu, Jan 07, 2016 at 08:54:00PM -0500, Gavin Andresen via bitcoin-dev wrote: > --- > > I'm really disappointed with the "Here's the spec, take it or leave it" > attitude. What's the point of having a BIP process if the discussion just > comes down to "We think more is better. We don't care what you think." I'll point out that I personally raised an issue with segpregated witnesses quite recently - my concern that it could make validationless mining easier and more profitable(1). Neither Pieter Wuille nor Gregory Maxwell believed my concern to be important at first in private communication. However, it was still discussed on IRC, with Pieter, Greg, and others contributing valuable input on the problem and my proposed fix. Right now I think the next step for me is to write the code to implement my fix and submit a pull-req against the segwit branch. I certainly wouldn't describe that experience as "Here's the spec, take it or leave it; We don't what what you think." 1) "Segregated witnesses and validationless mining", Peter Todd, Dec 23 2015, Bitcoin-dev mailing list, http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-December/012103.html -- 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org 000000000000000004aea2cfdb89c4816b7a42208dca1f3cfd66a1c9b5df4506 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 650 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20160108/d491f65e/attachment.sig>