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:
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?"
Your initial tirade was insufficiently specific to know which specific pull req that you referred to as 'unbelievably klugy'. After you actually bothered to identify that to which you were referring, it was evident I was already aware of it. Said identification, of course, being exactly why I pointed out that the thing of which I was unaware was what thing you had not at that point identified. Accordingly, until you
identified it, I was not aware of what
specific thing you were referring to. This is absolutely elementary. English much?
So you need to convince Gavin ...
I don't need to convince Gavin of doodly-squat. He's an uninvolved third party in this discussion. So far, this discussion is you and me, and you have not as of yet bothered to identify any shortcoming to my observation of the fact that mining incentives are already aligned to make the quadratic sig hash issue a non-problem. After three rounds, I am about to conclude you are unable to.
How about, instead of hurling insults, and non-responsive drivel, you actually engage the topic with reasoning? Incapable?.