I'm not advocating. I'm mediating. This is out of On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 1:39 PM, Matt Corallo wrote: > I highly disagree about the "not shit" part. You're advocating for > throwing away one of the key features of Segwit, something that is very > important for Bitcoin's long-term reliability! If you think doing so is > going to somehow help get support in a divided community, I don't > understand how - more likely you're only going to make things significantly > worse. > > On May 10, 2017 11:25:27 AM EDT, Sergio Demian Lerner < > sergio.d.lerner@gmail.com> wrote: > >Jaja. But no shit. Not perfect maybe, but Bitcoin was never perfect. It > >has > >always been good enough. And at the beginning it was quite simple. > >Simple > >enough it allowed gradual improvements that anyone with some technical > >background could understand. Now we need a full website to explain an > >improvement. > >But this is becoming more and more out of topic. > > > > > >On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 11:05 AM, Matt Corallo > > > >wrote: > > > >> I'm highly unconvinced of this point. Sure, you can change fewer > >lines > >> of code, but if the result is, lets be honest, shit, how do you > >believe > >> its going to have a higher chance of getting acceptance from the > >broader > >> community? I think you're over-optimizing in the wrong direction. > >> > >> Matt > >> > >> On 05/09/17 20:58, Sergio Demian Lerner wrote: > >> > I agree with you Matt. > >> > I'm artificially limiting myself to changing the parameters of > >Segwit as > >> > it is.. > >> > > >> > This is motivated by the idea that a consensual HF in the current > >state > >> > would have greater chance of acceptance if it changes the minimum > >number > >> > of lines of code. > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 5:13 PM, Gregory Maxwell >> > > wrote: > >> > > >> > On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 7:42 PM, Matt Corallo > >> > > > >wrote: > >> > > at beast. > >> > > >> > Rawr. > >> > > >> > > >> >