MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CADJgMzsXrrY+-OHzUmnaDmFkqvDr29eHuwOvovSnUwjVnOiZOQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADm_WcZyK6LUcuKqSEuR-q0hTZOC3EdJsqY1HrS_ow0knDY=7A@mail.gmail.com>
	<e54e93e519d776262f9c0f4ae23f54fb@xbt.hk>
	<CADJgMzuWNNvMf6f9N0h0swAUATyAm4Y9Qu+ya33cEA1WB++sRg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADm_WcbVRQMFHU0pS7hi99=Ey3Pu3t6pViaPG-KpHF40w69N6A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADJgMzsXrrY+-OHzUmnaDmFkqvDr29eHuwOvovSnUwjVnOiZOQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2015 18:13:34 +0200
Message-ID: <CABm2gDqY5=2WB4D1E-r9QfEBbreYPzq7dou9SYH3HCLzfpKLPg@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
To: Btc Drak <btcdrak@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e01228c70ae0187051eda10d0
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP 100 specification
Precedence: list

--089e01228c70ae0187051eda10d0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Sep 3, 2015 5:58 PM, "Btc Drak via bitcoin-dev" <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 3:34 PM, Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@gmail.com> wrote:
> > A discussion of rolling out BIP 100 will not be avoided :)
> >
> > It is a hard fork; it would be silly to elide discussion of these key
> > issues.
> >
> > I don't get the community's recent interest in avoiding certain topics.
>
> It's not a matter of avoiding the subject, it's a whole separate
> discussion and in the interests of efficient discussion, it is best
> done separately. There's a whole BIP dedicated to the discussion of
> consensus forks which you should probably give some input in also,
> BIP99 [1]
>
> Once we come to an agreement and can say "here's what we're doing
> about blocksize, it will be X, or we'll raise by this algo", then we
> can discuss the best way to implement the hard fork.
>
> [1] https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/181

In fact, that discussion can happen in parallel. But it is more efficient
to do so in one place instead of in each of the 5+ hardfork proposals
(bip99 itself has a hardfork proposal with its code ready).

--089e01228c70ae0187051eda10d0
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8

<p dir="ltr"><br>
On Sep 3, 2015 5:58 PM, &quot;Btc Drak via bitcoin-dev&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt; wrote:<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 3:34 PM, Jeff Garzik &lt;<a href="mailto:jgarzik@gmail.com">jgarzik@gmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:<br>
&gt; &gt; A discussion of rolling out BIP 100 will not be avoided :)<br>
&gt; &gt;<br>
&gt; &gt; It is a hard fork; it would be silly to elide discussion of these key<br>
&gt; &gt; issues.<br>
&gt; &gt;<br>
&gt; &gt; I don&#39;t get the community&#39;s recent interest in avoiding certain topics.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; It&#39;s not a matter of avoiding the subject, it&#39;s a whole separate<br>
&gt; discussion and in the interests of efficient discussion, it is best<br>
&gt; done separately. There&#39;s a whole BIP dedicated to the discussion of<br>
&gt; consensus forks which you should probably give some input in also,<br>
&gt; BIP99 [1]<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; Once we come to an agreement and can say &quot;here&#39;s what we&#39;re doing<br>
&gt; about blocksize, it will be X, or we&#39;ll raise by this algo&quot;, then we<br>
&gt; can discuss the best way to implement the hard fork.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; [1] <a href="https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/181">https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/181</a></p>
<p dir="ltr">In fact, that discussion can happen in parallel. But it is more efficient to do so in one place instead of in each of the 5+ hardfork proposals (bip99 itself has a hardfork proposal with its code ready).</p>

--089e01228c70ae0187051eda10d0--