...
I guess there is often a ton of code to merge but I believe Segwit was by far the most
complicated change which has had basically
zero impact on the scaling problems that are now becoming very serious with the fees going parabolic and effectively locking up to 50% of coin inputs. BTC is bleeding while Greg is drinking "champaign", I don't think I wish to follow this genius any further down the road he is building...
It looks like people are taking in interest based on market demand...
You've lost me now... these projects have no shortage of questionable people surrounding them, I think it's best to try to ignore all of that and focus on implementation. You've given a line count now and say it's complicated. Can you point to where in that 6k line count it's complicated? Where it's not addressed in unit-testing? I need technical specifics to understand. Segwit is actually a very small part of this v0.14 update, a tightening of consensus rules / not a hard fork, and it's an optional type of transaction to boot.
I agree that we don't need to worry about personalities. 6000 lines of dense code that changes consensus on a distributed network is complicated and risky by nature.
I have to correct one word here, and that's "changes". If it were to change consensus it would be a hard fork. This is a "tightening" of consensus. Older nodes still work fine, you don't have to use segwit transactions if you don't want to.
I don't think we need to go line-by-line to agree on that?
Actually, yes, that's exactly what I'm asking for. Where exactly in the core software is the concern? Line number, function, etc. I'm looking for specifics and not page after page of conjecture.
Unit testing is good in Bitcoin Core but what's the point of it for a useless change?
I don't see it as a useless change. I am intrigued by new capabilities like cross-chain swaps, rootstock-like applications, lightning (almost-instant payments) and MAST (especially the privacy that MAST could deliver). I think many folks probably didn't see the point in BIP16 at the time, but now we have multisig and it seems like second nature.
On top of this, Segwit requires an estimated of 100k lines of code changes in all of the utility code in the ecosystem (building and revalidating transactions in the new format, wallets, etc.).
Do you have a source for this? Why can't they just continue to use traditional transactions if they don't want to participate? Regardless, I can only focus on the core client right now so let's keep the conversation focused there I suppose.
I really don't see anything in that link that specifically points to a flaw in the core client beyond the client not being complete yet. Good code takes time and peer review. From what I've observed I'm confident in the upstream process (which is not just Blockstream by the way). Core is still beta software after all. I'd hate to see someone suggest that because the Myriadcoin reference implementation is still evolving it can't be useful or interesting.
I'm sorry to see XMY/MYR get embroiled in this.