3 ms·
FlexTrans are far more crappy and far far less tested than segwit. It introduces its own weird format that nobody uses, that's sort-of-XML-but-binary (I mean, t
by shp0ngle 9y ago
FlexTrans are far more crappy and far far less tested than segwit. It introduces its own weird format that nobody uses, that's sort-of-XML-but-binary (I mean, the authors said to themselves "I like XML so much I want it in a binary protocol") - and problems with types of formats is exactly where the various maleability problems come from! Which was reason for the segwit in the first place!
I am not for UASF and I think it's moronic (since it will lead to chainsplit and user confusion); segwit is fine though and FlexTrans are not a serious contender
- lawn 9y ago> and problems with types of formats is exactly where the various maleability problems come from! Which was reason for the segwit in the first place! You obviously have no idea what the maleability problem is and you didn't read and understand the linked articles.
- rothbardrand 9y agoDo enlighten us. Please be very detailed. Don't just link to some random article from a non-technical propagandist like you have been. Explain it. Segwit does fix malleability, and this is critical for bitcoins future, for many reasons.
- lawn 9y agoThe article contains a technical explanation... Don't be lazy and dismissive. It also explains that Segwit fixes the malleability and that Flexible Transactions also does (but in a non hacky way), so what is your point?
- rothbardrand 9y agoMy point is that you don't understand what you are talking about and are feeding us FUD based bullshit. And you have failed to give an explanation when called on it, just linking to someone else (also ignorant) as "proof".
- rothbardrand 9y agoYou oppose Segwit2x AND BIP-148, but you like Segwit?
- shp0ngle 9y agoSegwit2x is sort-of-OK for me frankly. I don't like the part where they rush to implement everything as fast as possible. And from apart (and I don't follow Segwit2x that much), the changeset seems too big from bitcoind. And they say openly they plan hard-fork, not this UASF where the S is not really that S and is almost guaranteed to result in a split and confusion. They signal Segwit in a compatible way, so it's OK. Just the timeline is crazy.