Before getting BTFO:
Because Gavin is a pragmatist that endeavored to give the users what they wanted, as long as it did not cause any actual harm? I dunno - you'd need to ask him.
Incidentally, I'm not aware of any 'unforgivably klugy' such work by him. To which pull req are you referring?
After getting BTFO:
I've certainly been aware of it, yet am not currently familiar with the (irrelevant) details. Thanks for the background.
So which is it? Is your final answer "not aware" or "certainly aware?"
You admit having no clue about the details (instantly characterized as "irrelevant" despite you not being previously aware of them) yet continue to assert the validity of your anointed vision despite lacking the background required for such a churlish degree of certainty.
I always reason from first principles, which is precisely why I don't omit inconvenient facts and messy empirical data, such as the quadratic hashing problem, when forming opinions and conclusions. Take your fact-free crystal ball and shove it deep up your worthless Gypsy fortune teller ass, OK?
BTW, Gavin (not me) defined quadratic sigop validation time as a "problem."
So you need to convince Gavin (not me) that your But Muh Incentives And Logical Inturrpolayshun Thought Experimunt analysis are correct, and he needn't worry about the O(n^2) attack, because you've got it all figured out.
If the quadratic hashing issue is a truly a "non-problem" then why did Gavin write an unforgivably kludgy, quick and dirty, non-futureproof workaround for it? 
Because Gavin is a pragmatist that endeavored to give the users what they wanted, as long as it did not cause any actual harm? I dunno - you'd need to ask him.
Incidentally, I'm not aware of any 'unforgivably klugy' such work by him. To which pull req are you referring?
After getting BTFO:
You aren't even familiar with Gavin's sigop/sighash patch and the situation/history surrounding it,
I've certainly been aware of it, yet am not currently familiar with the (irrelevant) details. Thanks for the background.
So which is it? Is your final answer "not aware" or "certainly aware?"
You admit having no clue about the details (instantly characterized as "irrelevant" despite you not being previously aware of them) yet continue to assert the validity of your anointed vision despite lacking the background required for such a churlish degree of certainty.
I always reason from first principles, which is precisely why I don't omit inconvenient facts and messy empirical data, such as the quadratic hashing problem, when forming opinions and conclusions. Take your fact-free crystal ball and shove it deep up your worthless Gypsy fortune teller ass, OK?
BTW, Gavin (not me) defined quadratic sigop validation time as a "problem."
So you need to convince Gavin (not me) that your But Muh Incentives And Logical Inturrpolayshun Thought Experimunt analysis are correct, and he needn't worry about the O(n^2) attack, because you've got it all figured out.