Quote from: jbreher on July 07, 2017, 03:53:33 AM

Quote from: JayJuanGee on July 07, 2017, 02:28:06 AM

Quote from: jbreher on July 07, 2017, 01:59:43 AM

Quote from: JayJuanGee on July 06, 2017, 06:29:45 PM

And the safer means would be running some kind of core implemented software, right?

I don't see how.

I thought that the framework of this current line of discussion was between the kinds of segwit to run, rather than not running segwit at all, which seems to be the additional framework that you are adding, Jbreher.

OK, let us posit that there is some differential in 'safety' for some different 'kinds' of segwit. I still have no idea what you're getting at. Maybe you can explain why you would think some core implemented segwit code might be 'safer' than some other segwit code.

How the fuck do I know what is safer and what is not safer?

All I am saying is that there may be various economic nodes that might not be willing to change what they are running unless they are comfortable that it is sufficiently tested and vetted. I don't know all the factors that they weigh, but it seems to me that there remains a considerable difference between a variety of folks saying that they are planning to do something and what the fuck they actually do when the option is available to them and what options might come available to them. It seems that historically some economic nodes and miners might signal intention based on thinking that there is going to be some kind of core related variation that they are going to be able to run in the future, but if that core related variation does not come available, then they do not end up following through with their earlier signaled intention. Their reasons can vary and their concerns about safety would likely be one of their consideration.. right? aren't we talking about economic value that could be at risk in making some kinds of changes?