To: Eric Lombrozo <elombrozo@gmail.com>,
	Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>,
	Tom Zander <tomz@freedommail.ch>
References: <7169224.bI6Cz5OEL8@cherry>
	<CABr1YTfc0BZ21-mwMohqo8_v8D1QnYiGB_SMeCLwFChY2MV_zA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Eric Voskuil <eric@voskuil.org>
Message-ID: <9b4e6445-518b-c723-77a4-2c388f2864cc@voskuil.org>
Date: Sat, 7 Jan 2017 16:32:25 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101
	Thunderbird/45.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CABr1YTfc0BZ21-mwMohqo8_v8D1QnYiGB_SMeCLwFChY2MV_zA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature";
	boundary="LUbsaA8SqFoVClwcl11OgqQOT27TqJEE5"
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin Classic 1.2.0 released
Precedence: list

This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156)
--LUbsaA8SqFoVClwcl11OgqQOT27TqJEE5
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On 01/07/2017 12:55 AM, Eric Lombrozo via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> Your release announcement does not make it clear that Bitcoin Classic i=
s
> incompatible with the current Bitcoin network and its consensus rules.
> It is a hard fork on mainnet with no safe activation as well as
> including other unsafe changes. There is also no BIP for the hard fork.=

> There is also no evidence of community wide consensus for such a hard
> fork. This is dangerous and irresponsible.

While I agree with the sentiment, to be fair one should acknowledge that
Bitcoin Core has intentionally implemented two hard forks since Nov
2015. The earlier is released, and I assume the latter will be.

Neither was subject to activation, or prior public debate (see Buried
Deployments threads):

https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2016-November/thr=
ead.html

There was at least some internal discussion about whether a BIP should
document the latter having occurred, and that question was put to the lis=
t:

https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2016-November/013=
275.html

Some have argued that these are inconsequential changes. I disagree, as
the arguments is base on provably invalid assumptions. Nevertheless, if
hard fork is the threshold criteria here, Core has not met it.

e


--LUbsaA8SqFoVClwcl11OgqQOT27TqJEE5
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJYcYiZAAoJEDzYwH8LXOFO7wkH/j0V/jGPK5mxGbbGdzyy62c0
wNrq67nspXiGcY0kAxf6wc3dNm3pDXPvB+H0BSY3Mfp23qcV9WwhFK4kP3dWjjxV
Pivw4LqycyM54WrXNgzpdYqRhxkho6HLcY6s09/UYWcsv+QPTu/hI+E7IUhem8lb
JD1l09PG+4vHi8ntOr2JQJ2Y8gR4UJvJbrVVaSvRFU3wdddum1Qk+XLZJIlYkmhA
NN2dFBzkqg7P3COaifSz+ScxcBnMc8RZSLGtNRGIjfnq5fsNLSYWAQppMiSN5uJA
B+hO6fWRBcX9sKj0+2d34dHUUzSY9IykqyZ83WJQPzKqQIh2Ut+SGsQuUVoG+f0=
=PN9s
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--LUbsaA8SqFoVClwcl11OgqQOT27TqJEE5--