Difference between revisions of "Talk:Segwit support"

From Bitcoin Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(company list: new section)
(company list)
Line 11: Line 11:
  
  
I removed the company list from the page because I don't see any evidence supporting most of the claims in it.  If I were one of these companies and my position was misrepresented I would be very unhappy.  Please get some actual confirmation before listing companies here.
+
I removed the company list from the page because I don't see any evidence supporting most of the claims in it.  If I were one of these companies and my position was misrepresented I would be very unhappy.  Please get some actual confirmation before listing companies on the page. --[[User:Gmaxwell|Gmaxwell]] ([[User talk:Gmaxwell|talk]]) 07:13, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
  
  

Revision as of 07:13, 15 June 2017

Active in column(s)

I added in the 'active in' column, since it looked like we might be getting random folks from Reddit adding themselves. Someone doesn't have to be active in core for their opinion to matter by any means, but people have been citing this document to counter the reality distortion field claiming that the developers of Bitcoin Core support "segwit2x" and getting a bunch of who-knows-who-they-are people on the page would break that purpose without something like this. The criteria I used was one commit since a year before the creation of the page which is an arbitrary but pretty low bar. A low bar is justifiable because some people contribute primarily in the form of review or long term changes that produce just a commit or two in a few months... but someone who isn't making a commit a year is really hard to argue as being part of the projects regardless of anything else. I believe if the criteria were upped to at least two the only change would be that Warren would drop out. If it were dropped to 6 months Decker would drop out (as he's busy with lightning). Both would be justifiable, as I don't consider either of them very involved right now-- but either way is fine. I just mention it to show that it's not overly sensitive to the parameter. Cheers --Gmaxwell (talk) 20:08, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Sources Please

Please add sources for companies supporting BIP148. For example Bitstamp is not listed on coin.dance as in support.

company list

I removed the company list from the page because I don't see any evidence supporting most of the claims in it. If I were one of these companies and my position was misrepresented I would be very unhappy. Please get some actual confirmation before listing companies on the page. --Gmaxwell (talk) 07:13, 15 June 2017 (UTC)


PLEASE NOTE: This list is not yet complete, nor completely vetted by the parties listed for accuracy.

Company Segwit itself Deployment methods Hardfork bundles (Silbert agreement)
BIP 141 BIP 148 BIP 149 BIP 91 Segwit2x COOP
Bitfury miner Prefer Acceptable Acc. until July
Bitsquare exchange Prefer Prefer[1]
Coinbase wallet Prefer Evaluating Weak Acc. until July
Xapo wallet Prefer Evaluating Acc. until July
Blockchain.info wallet Prefer Evaluating Weak Acc. until July
Kraken exchange Prefer Acceptable Acc. until July
Bitstamp exchange Prefer Acceptable Acceptable
Bitfinex exchange Prefer Acceptable Acceptable
Bitpay wallet Prefer No Prefer
Localbitcoins exchange Prefer Acceptable Weak Acc. until July
Poloniex exchange Prefer Wanting Acc. until July
Bitmain miner No No Prefer