Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 65B6319F6 for ; Mon, 28 Sep 2015 22:16:45 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-wi0-f180.google.com (mail-wi0-f180.google.com [209.85.212.180]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 57456FD for ; Mon, 28 Sep 2015 22:16:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wiclk2 with SMTP id lk2so121145356wic.1 for ; Mon, 28 Sep 2015 15:16:43 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:content-type; bh=lNzqfo98ggnYaHPyp6zczEi07JRL8/PZ0DfcQlrzGFs=; b=tBBnBsOFwJTqTjncsSYn9kHnjvNaLWB8+R0CXuLH+D120gKJPDmNoznaM5SatHtXPz 1RFkZdg7Mga2zdnv81VrvK3fq73Ar+eT6r0z6iWwIerlrdhUFRorCYeXbZA+QqfGCV9T /QIgZMda1GHeeaWGacECdvG1kUuVceuXKgeFbXiiVp9zcp/5jbDQ0zf/WisDVMKQLsOK ZIetlmoeD15u8dHf+KRZsaX/+t4q6XuWewXwAvcqnF3KNFWUbggt5Y86VGU6Rn2mKy+3 DkaOILhJ8lQL35Z/92OUBdVjWTb60a0JPCD170QanZj3Znn6fbUpLHbi0+TsxXJvp0Zi cwfA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.249.34 with SMTP id yr2mr24195008wjc.90.1443478602899; Mon, 28 Sep 2015 15:16:42 -0700 (PDT) Sender: dscotese@gmail.com Received: by 10.27.211.132 with HTTP; Mon, 28 Sep 2015 15:16:42 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <5609AD23.4070305@riseup.net> References: <20150927185031.GA20599@savin.petertodd.org> <5609AD23.4070305@riseup.net> Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2015 15:16:42 -0700 X-Google-Sender-Auth: jMm6HC2fCSSf3Z3QRgNsXp2B9as Message-ID: From: Dave Scotese To: Bitcoin Dev Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c1b8d25de89c0520d60de2 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Let's deploy BIP65 CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY! X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2015 22:16:45 -0000 --001a11c1b8d25de89c0520d60de2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Why are they called soft forks when they are really hidden forks? Isn't the point of a soft fork to prevent old clients from rejecting what they don't have the code to validate? That seems dangerous. notplato On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 2:12 PM, odinn via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA512 > > And still no movement on BIP 63... > > https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1083961.20 > > Apart from that, > > All my prior objections to XT still hold as expressed on this list. > XT is not acceptable. > > On the topic of consensus: > > Reaching consensus, I hope, is something that developers can > accomplish by refining and adjusting the BIPS and coming to agreement > upon them. This should be something that can be done in a few months > time, before the end of the year. > > Cheers, > > - - O > > Adam Back via bitcoin-dev: > > I wonder what Gavin's views are, he's usually constructive, and see > > if he'll include it in XT - I think he may have said he was > > supportive. > > > > The rationale for soft vs hard-forks is well known, so I wont go > > over them. > > > > Adam > > > > > > On 28 September 2015 at 06:48, Mike Hearn via bitcoin-dev > > wrote: > >> There is no consensus on using a soft fork to deploy this > >> feature. It will result in the same problems as all the other > >> soft forks - SPV wallets will become less reliable during the > >> rollout period. I am against that, as it's entirely avoidable. > >> > >> Make it a hard fork and my objection will be dropped. > >> > >> Until then, as there is no consensus, you need to do one of two > >> things: > >> > >> 1) Drop the "everyone must agree to make changes" idea that > >> people here like to peddle, and do it loudly, so everyone in the > >> community is correctly informed > >> > >> 2) Do nothing > >> > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev > >> mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > >> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > >> > > _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing > > list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > > > > - -- > http://abis.io ~ > "a protocol concept to enable decentralization > and expansion of a giving economy, and a new social good" > https://keybase.io/odinn > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > > iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJWCa0jAAoJEGxwq/inSG8CuCUIALiRt6cE3b+9f+l9m6aMTjIR > vTEIM/7B4dIZW9eatXmkxyd44uz5YoN93SlZtV62c90HCqqpFRBCfyXRyXzQ11E7 > 0i70or5LnWDOqrD1bSsCEdrQxPIpAQnv101UHe3iyn/uHAVBiz/HfqvGMruNt0r1 > 4sMecp+LedWpy6/p9c6iMHV1rhtYRfmRfJHj+9KlSn+in5PQKx2kieWqpfqjmlNs > J/UNoLvRuF0YxDcqEdp2BAaI0s+NyXBo3YDi4R77U9YPRj/cYuWHh/yPKAvFW+2K > 0d9NNuKSKEY/m4uW3ghPEJL7OxlGbOoNWFS3kcKYr+BanfsPTov7yHQhBuRBRPw= > =hd0W > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > --001a11c1b8d25de89c0520d60de2 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Why are they called soft forks when they are really h= idden forks?=C2=A0 Isn't the point of a soft fork to prevent old= clients from rejecting what they don't have the code to validate?=C2= =A0 That seems dangerous.

notplato

On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 2:12 P= M, odinn via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfound= ation.org> wrote:
-----BEG= IN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

And still no movement on BIP 63...

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3D108396= 1.20

Apart from that,

All my prior objections to XT still hold as expressed on this list.
XT is not acceptable.

On the topic of consensus:

Reaching consensus, I hope, is something that developers can
accomplish by refining and adjusting the BIPS and coming to agreement
upon them.=C2=A0 This should be something that can be done in a few months<= br> time, before the end of the year.

Cheers,

- - O

Adam Back via bitcoin-dev:
> I wonder what Gavin's views are, he's u= sually constructive, and see
> if he'll include it in XT - I think he may have said he was
> supportive.
>
> The rationale for soft vs hard-forks is well known, so I wont go
> over them.
>
> Adam
>
>
> On 28 September 2015 at 06:48, Mike Hearn via bitcoin-dev
> <bitcoin-d= ev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>> There is no consensus on using a soft fork to deploy this
>> feature. It will result in the same problems as all the other
>> soft forks - SPV wallets will become less reliable during the
>> rollout period. I am against that, as it's entirely avoidable.=
>>
>> Make it a hard fork and my objection will be dropped.
>>
>> Until then, as there is no consensus, you need to do one of two >> things:
>>
>> 1) Drop the "everyone must agree to make changes" idea t= hat
>> people here like to peddle, and do it loudly, so everyone in the >> community is correctly informed
>>
>> 2) Do nothing
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev
>> mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation= .org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>
> _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing > list bitcoin-= dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org= /mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>

- --
http://abis= .io ~
"a protocol concept to enable decentralization
and expansion of a giving economy, and a new social good"
h= ttps://keybase.io/odinn
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJWCa0jAAoJEGxwq/inSG8CuCUIALiRt6cE3b+9f+l9m6aMTjIR
vTEIM/7B4dIZW9eatXmkxyd44uz5YoN93SlZtV62c90HCqqpFRBCfyXRyXzQ11E7
0i70or5LnWDOqrD1bSsCEdrQxPIpAQnv101UHe3iyn/uHAVBiz/HfqvGMruNt0r1
4sMecp+LedWpy6/p9c6iMHV1rhtYRfmRfJHj+9KlSn+in5PQKx2kieWqpfqjmlNs
J/UNoLvRuF0YxDcqEdp2BAaI0s+NyXBo3YDi4R77U9YPRj/cYuWHh/yPKAvFW+2K
0d9NNuKSKEY/m4uW3ghPEJL7OxlGbOoNWFS3kcKYr+BanfsPTov7yHQhBuRBRPw=3D
=3Dhd0W
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
___________________________________= ____________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.= linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail= man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev


--001a11c1b8d25de89c0520d60de2--