On Sat, Apr 15, 2017 at 6:28 AM, Cameron Garnham <da2...@gmail.com> wrote: > As many may remember, there was quite some controversy about the BIP16 vs BIP > 17 split; the main argument for BIP16 was the urgency of P2SH, and how this > was the already “tested and proven to work” solution.
And as a result we ultimately got a clearly inferior solution (520 byte script limit; 80-bit security; months of orphaned blocks-- and two of those were not issues in BIP17). I went along for the cram fest on 16 after 12 caught fire, and I was mistaken to do so. Doubly so because it took years for P2SH to achieve any kind of mass deployment due to issues far away from consensus. An extra two months spent on some ground-work (including communications and documentation) could have pulled forward practical deployment by a year and given time to find and fix some of the flaws in the design of P2SH. > BIP 148 is out (our?) terms of peace. The Bitcoin Community is > tired-to-death of this war and wants a resolution swiftly. BIP 148 proves a > outlet, and in Maxwell words: “...almost guarantees at a minor level of > disruption.”. It seems I lost a word in my comment: that should have been "almost guarantees at _least_ a minor level of disruption". A minor level of disruption is the _minimum_ amount of disruption, and for no good reason except an unprecedented and unjustified level of haste. Considering that you did not spare a single word about the specific property that I am concerned about-- that the proposal will reject the blocks of passive participants, due to avoidable design limitations-- I can't help but feel that you don't even care to understand the concern I was bringing up. :( How many people barely reviewed the specifics of the proposal simply because they want something fast and this proposal does something fast? > tired-to-death of this war and wants a resolution swiftly By now competitors and opponents to Bitcoin have surely realized that they can attack Bitcoin by stirring up drama. As a result, the only way that we will ever be free from "war" is if we choose to not let it impact us as much as possible. We must be imperturbable and continue working at the same level of excellence as if virtual shells weren't flying overhead-- or otherwise there is an incentive to keep them flying 24/7. Internet drama is remarkably cheap to generate. "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself". The alternative is that we hand opponents a ready made formula for disruption: astroturf enough drama up that Bitcoiners "sacrifice correctness" themselves right off a cliff in a futile attempt to make it go away. :) _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
