MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: dscotese@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <5609AD23.4070305@riseup.net>
References: <20150927185031.GA20599@savin.petertodd.org>
	<CA+w+GKRCVr-9TVk66utp7xLRgTxNpxYoj3XQE-6y_N8JS6eO6Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALqxMTFEme9gYHTAVVLtFc4JCK4hoBLXEhMCRdEXK9cWso_pUA@mail.gmail.com>
	<5609AD23.4070305@riseup.net>
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2015 15:16:42 -0700
Message-ID: <CAGLBAhf+9QozWETTd9MS8jP811f9AJxJiAk10orGK8-ZihahqQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dave Scotese <dscotese@litmocracy.com>
To: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c1b8d25de89c0520d60de2
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Let's deploy BIP65 CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY!
Precedence: list

--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
> > <bitcoin-dev@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 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

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div>Why are they called soft forks when they are really h=
idden forks?<i></i>=C2=A0 Isn&#39;t the point of a soft fork to prevent old=
 clients from rejecting what they don&#39;t have the code to validate?=C2=
=A0 That seems dangerous.<br></div><div><br></div>notplato<br><div class=3D=
"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 2:12 P=
M, odinn via bitcoin-dev <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-de=
v@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfound=
ation.org</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=
=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">-----BEG=
IN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----<br>
Hash: SHA512<br>
<br>
And still no movement on BIP 63...<br>
<br>
<a href=3D"https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3D1083961.20" rel=3D"nor=
eferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3D108396=
1.20</a><br>
<br>
Apart from that,<br>
<br>
All my prior objections to XT still hold as expressed on this list.<br>
XT is not acceptable.<br>
<br>
On the topic of consensus:<br>
<br>
Reaching consensus, I hope, is something that developers can<br>
accomplish by refining and adjusting the BIPS and coming to agreement<br>
upon them.=C2=A0 This should be something that can be done in a few months<=
br>
time, before the end of the year.<br>
<br>
Cheers,<br>
<br>
- - O<br>
<br>
Adam Back via bitcoin-dev:<br>
<div><div class=3D"h5">&gt; I wonder what Gavin&#39;s views are, he&#39;s u=
sually constructive, and see<br>
&gt; if he&#39;ll include it in XT - I think he may have said he was<br>
&gt; supportive.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; The rationale for soft vs hard-forks is well known, so I wont go<br>
&gt; over them.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; Adam<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; On 28 September 2015 at 06:48, Mike Hearn via bitcoin-dev<br>
&gt; &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-d=
ev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt; wrote:<br>
&gt;&gt; There is no consensus on using a soft fork to deploy this<br>
&gt;&gt; feature. It will result in the same problems as all the other<br>
&gt;&gt; soft forks - SPV wallets will become less reliable during the<br>
&gt;&gt; rollout period. I am against that, as it&#39;s entirely avoidable.=
<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; Make it a hard fork and my objection will be dropped.<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; Until then, as there is no consensus, you need to do one of two<br=
>
&gt;&gt; things:<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; 1) Drop the &quot;everyone must agree to make changes&quot; idea t=
hat<br>
&gt;&gt; people here like to peddle, and do it loudly, so everyone in the<b=
r>
&gt;&gt; community is correctly informed<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; 2) Do nothing<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev<br>
&gt;&gt; mailing list <a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.o=
rg">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
&gt;&gt; <a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc=
oin-dev" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation=
.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt; _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing<br=
>
&gt; list <a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-=
dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
&gt; <a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-=
dev" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org=
/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br>
&gt;<br>
<br>
</div></div>- --<br>
<a href=3D"http://abis.io" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">http://abis=
.io</a> ~<br>
&quot;a protocol concept to enable decentralization<br>
and expansion of a giving economy, and a new social good&quot;<br>
<a href=3D"https://keybase.io/odinn" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">h=
ttps://keybase.io/odinn</a><br>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----<br>
<br>
iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJWCa0jAAoJEGxwq/inSG8CuCUIALiRt6cE3b+9f+l9m6aMTjIR<br>
vTEIM/7B4dIZW9eatXmkxyd44uz5YoN93SlZtV62c90HCqqpFRBCfyXRyXzQ11E7<br>
0i70or5LnWDOqrD1bSsCEdrQxPIpAQnv101UHe3iyn/uHAVBiz/HfqvGMruNt0r1<br>
4sMecp+LedWpy6/p9c6iMHV1rhtYRfmRfJHj+9KlSn+in5PQKx2kieWqpfqjmlNs<br>
J/UNoLvRuF0YxDcqEdp2BAaI0s+NyXBo3YDi4R77U9YPRj/cYuWHh/yPKAvFW+2K<br>
0d9NNuKSKEY/m4uW3ghPEJL7OxlGbOoNWFS3kcKYr+BanfsPTov7yHQhBuRBRPw=3D<br>
=3Dhd0W<br>
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----<br>
<div class=3D"HOEnZb"><div class=3D"h5">___________________________________=
____________<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.=
linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" =
rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail=
man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br></div></div>

--001a11c1b8d25de89c0520d60de2--