[bitcoin-dev] (no subject)

You keep calling flexible transactions "safer", and yet you haven't mentioned that the current codebase is riddled with blatant and massive security holes. For example, you seem to have misunderstood C++'s memory model - you would have no less than three out-of-bound, probably exploitable memory accesses in your 80-LoC deserialize method at https://github.com/bitcoinclassic/bitcoinclassic/blob/develop/src/primitives/transaction.cpp#L119 if you were to turn on flexible transactions (and I only reviewed that method for 2 minutes). If you want to propose an alternative to a community which has been in desperate need of fixes to many problems for several years, please do so with something which would not take at least a year to complete given a large team of qualified developers. You additionally have not yet bothered to address the discussion of soft-fork security at https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-December/012014.html which I believe answers all of your claims about upgrades required in a much more detailed discussion than I will include here. Please take your off-topic discussions there instead of this thread. On 10/16/16 18:20, Tom Zander via bitcoin-dev wrote: > On Sunday, 16 October 2016 09:47:40 CEST Douglas Roark via bitcoin-dev > wrote: >> Would I want anyone to lose money due to faulty wallets? Of course not. >> By the same token, devs have had almost a year to tinker with SegWit and >> make sure the wallet isn't so poorly written that it'll flame out when >> SegWit comes along. It's not like this is some untested, mostly unknown >> feature that's being slipped out at the last minute > > There have been objections to the way that SegWit has been implemented for a > long time, some wallets are taking a "wait and see" approach. If you look > at the page you linked[1], that is a very very sad state of affairs. The > vast majority is not ready. Would be interesting to get a more up-to-date > view. > Wallets probably won't want to invest resources adding support for a feature > that will never be activated. The fact that we have a much safer alternative > in the form of Flexible Transactions may mean it will not get activated. We > won't know until its actually locked in. > Wallets may not act until its actually locked in either. And I think we > should respect that. > > Even if all wallets support it (and thats a big if), they need to be rolled > out and people need to actually download those updates. > This takes time, 2 months after the lock-in of SegWit would be the minimum > safe time for people to actually upgrade. > > 1) https://bitcoincore.org/en/segwit_adoption/ >