Quote from: Lauda on February 04, 2016, 09:36:02 PM

Quote from: franky1 on February 04, 2016, 09:22:06 PM

so we agree that 2mb is not a problem (because of your love for segwit which for full nodes is 2mb) we debunked your theory about processing time because any implementation can use the same libsecp256k1.

Libsecp256k1 has nothing to do with the validation time; your idiocy is astounding. Your employer will fire you if you keep being so obvious.

Quote

In 0.12 validation is switched to libsecp256k1, and it makes validation much faster (especially on x86_64). It doesn't help with the O(n^2) hashing problem, because that's about the computation of the hashes that are being verified. However, segwit does contain a solution for that (which only applies to transactions choosing to use it, but the other ones are limited to 1 MB).

Also know as BIP 143, not some workaround as Gavin proposed and classified as a fix.

Quote from: franky1 on February 04, 2016, 09:22:06 PM

so your problem seems to be more about if your friends remain in control of the commit keys

A) They are not my friends; B) Blockstream has 1 person with commit access. Is Andreas Schildbach another 'Blockstream shill' because he actually knows what he's talking about and is supportive of Segwit? Roll Eyes

Do you realize you quoted this: Schildbach shared the concerns as presented by Bitcoin Classic, and believes a hard fork to be the preferred solution.
Blocks are full, and I dont agree that a hard fork solution would be short notice. Weve been discussing this issue for years now! I would prefer we roll out a hard fork, he said.