On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 02:49:22PM -0400, Alex Morcos via bitcoin-dev wrote: > "it was ACKed by everyone else that I heard from" - I don't think you > should read into that much. > > I felt like this whole conversation was putting the cart before the horse. > You might very well have some good ideas in your roadmap update, to tell > you the truth, I didn't even read it. > But I don't think we should be taking relatively new/untested ideas such as > Drivechain and sticking them on a roadmap. There is a tendency in this > community to hear about the latest and greatest idea and immediately fixate > on it as our salvation. I'm very happy that you are doing this work and > that others are researching a wide variety of ideas. But please, lets be > conservative and flexible with how we evolve Bitcoin. We don't even know > if or when we'll get segwit yet.
Agreed! A closely related example is my own Treechains work, which got a bunch of excitement when I first published the idea. But would I have wanted it on a roadmap? Hell no: sure enough, as it got more peer review others (and myself!) found that it was going to be a harder than it initially looked to actually get into production. Drivechains is definitely in that situation right now. Also don't forget that proper security peer review takes a *lot* of work. I myself have a todo list item to respond to Paul's post on Drivechains, but I need to spend a few days to do that and just haven't had the time (not to mention that no-one is paying me to do general Bitcoin dev work right now). -- https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
