Chackall
-
Sinalizar
como inapropriado
-
Mostrar
Show review history
PS: Hourglass BIP draft is here: I don't like this. We should never be disabling specific address types for any reason. If security is not an adequate reason to disable something, that it not a characteristic of decentralized consensus -- it is a characteristic of decentralized consensus failure. Some decentralization idealism has corrupted the space whereas it is paraded as a zealot pseudo religion with some arbitrary rules and ideas that have nothing to do with decentralization. Given adequate necessity, one of which is security and a complete compromise -- you can disable and stop things in a decentralized system too. I might following your reasoning and introduce "we should never disable ECDSA for any reason", it sounds even more ridiculous. We are not developers, we are users in a decentralized system that has governance. Of course we should do things that are in our objective interest. This BIP does not do anything controversial at all. There is no freezing, there is no seizure, there is no expiration date, nothing. Stop finding useless reasoning against good ideas, this is one where you should help facilitate consensus rather than combat it. It is not even that limiting, that is a lot of coin per day. There is absolutely not a single valid reason not to disable the creation of new P2PK outputs. Therefore, I do not understand your concern on that point. Whether the limitation of spending is going to be effective or whether this is the right path to go is open for debate, disabling spending to P2PK addresses should not be. That is not a controversial change, Core should implement that as a policy rule first while we talk about consensus in the meantime.
PS: Hourglass BIP draft is here: I don't like this. We should never be disabling specific address types for any reason. If security is not an adequate reason to disable something, that it not a characteristic of decentralized consensus -- it is a characteristic of decentralized consensus failure. Some decentralization idealism has corrupted the space whereas it is paraded as a zealot pseudo religion with some arbitrary rules and ideas that have nothing to do with decentralization. Given adequate necessity, one of which is security and a complete compromise -- you can disable and stop things in a decentralized system too. I might following your reasoning and introduce "we should never disable ECDSA for any reason", it sounds even more ridiculous. We are not developers, we are users in a decentralized system that has governance. Of course we should do things that are in our objective interest. This BIP does not do anything controversial at all. There is no freezing, there is no seizure, there is no expiration date, nothing. Stop finding useless reasoning against good ideas, this is one where you should help facilitate consensus rather than combat it. It is not even that limiting, that is a lot of coin per day. There is absolutely not a single valid reason not to disable the creation of new P2PK outputs. Therefore, I do not understand your concern on that point. Whether the limitation of spending is going to be effective or whether this is the right path to go is open for debate, disabling spending to P2PK addresses should not be. That is not a controversial change, Core should implement that as a policy rule first while we talk about consensus in the meantime.
This review was marked as helpful by
1 people
Viturino Junior
-
Sinalizar
como inapropriado
PS: Hourglass BIP draft is here: I don't like this. We should never be disabling specific address types for any reason. If security is not an adequate reason to disable something, that it not a characteristic of decentralized consensus -- it is a characteristic of decentralized consensus failure. Some decentralization idealism has corrupted the space whereas it is paraded as a zealot pseudo religion with some arbitrary rules and ideas that have nothing to do with decentralization. Given adequate necessity, one of which is security and a complete compromise -- you can disable and stop things in a decentralized system too. I might following your reasoning and introduce "we should never disable ECDSA for any reason", it sounds even more ridiculous. We are not developers, we are users in a decentralized system that has governance. Of course we should do things that are in our objective interest. This BIP does not do anything controversial at all. There is no freezing, there is no seizure, there is no expiration date, nothing. Stop finding useless reasoning against good ideas, this is one where you should help facilitate consensus rather than combat it. It is not even that limiting, that is a lot of coin per day. There is absolutely not a single valid reason not to disable the creation of new P2PK outputs. Therefore, I do not understand your concern on that point. Whether the limitation of spending is going to be effective or whether this is the right path to go is open for debate, disabling spending to P2PK addresses should not be. That is not a controversial change, Core should implement that as a policy rule first while we talk about consensus in the meantime.
This review was marked as helpful by
34 people
Vittori
-
Sinalizar
como inapropriado
-
Show history of
PS: Hourglass BIP draft is here: I don't like this. We should never be disabling specific address types for any reason. If security is not an adequate reason to disable something, that it not a characteristic of decentralized consensus -- it is a characteristic of decentralized consensus failure. Some decentralization idealism has corrupted the space whereas it is paraded as a zealot pseudo religion with some arbitrary rules and ideas that have nothing to do with decentralization. Given adequate necessity, one of which is security and a complete compromise -- you can disable and stop things in a decentralized system too. I might following your reasoning and introduce "we should never disable ECDSA for any reason", it sounds even more ridiculous. We are not developers, we are users in a decentralized system that has governance. Of course we should do things that are in our objective interest. This BIP does not do anything controversial at all. There is no freezing, there is no seizure, there is no expiration date, nothing. Stop finding useless reasoning against good ideas, this is one where you should help facilitate consensus rather than combat it. It is not even that limiting, that is a lot of coin per day. There is absolutely not a single valid reason not to disable the creation of new P2PK outputs. Therefore, I do not understand your concern on that point. Whether the limitation of spending is going to be effective or whether this is the right path to go is open for debate, disabling spending to P2PK addresses should not be. That is not a controversial change, Core should implement that as a policy rule first while we talk about consensus in the meantime.
This review was marked as helpful
by 890 people
