Quote from: iCEBREAKER on February 20, 2017, 10:08:48 PM

Quote from: jbreher on February 20, 2017, 09:35:28 PM

Quote from: -ck on February 20, 2017, 08:48:45 PM

This is, again, a limitation of the code rather than a protocol problem

I see we agree. On this small point, at any rate.

I wonder who may have an incentive to code up an alternative implementation? Maybe somebody who already has millions of dollars tied up in capital equipment - someone whose continued profitability requires making any optimization allowed by the protocol...

Bitcoin is moving to Schnorr sigs. We need them not only to stop O(n^2) attacks, but also to enable tree signatures and fungibility, etc.

Why would anyone waste time trying to fix the obsolete Lamport scheme?

Perhaps the Unlimite_ crowd will decide to dig in their heels against Schnorr?

Oh wait, by blocking segwit they already have! Grin

Point of Clarification

The Miners are the ones blocking segwit installation, you know the ones you depend on making new blocks and including transactions and keeping BTC secure.
Those are the guys blocking segwit, the ones your entire BTC network depends on.
Maybe they know more than you do or they just don't care what you think. Cheesy

FYI:
Combining BU & 8MB & Not Voting , Over 70% is refusing to install segwit.
In a normal race , that is a LandSlide.
What is strange is the pro-segwitters are too stupid to grasp that NO ONE WANTS SEGWIT or LN. Tongue

Larger BlockSizes and keeping the Transactions ONCHAIN is what everyone wants.