MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CALqxMTFEme9gYHTAVVLtFc4JCK4hoBLXEhMCRdEXK9cWso_pUA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20150927185031.GA20599@savin.petertodd.org>
	<CA+w+GKRCVr-9TVk66utp7xLRgTxNpxYoj3XQE-6y_N8JS6eO6Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALqxMTFEme9gYHTAVVLtFc4JCK4hoBLXEhMCRdEXK9cWso_pUA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2015 13:40:35 +0200
Message-ID: <CA+w+GKQ8xos6S_BBMqZy6wieFCG=eNxahKXrx3mVKuZcxzjruw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mike Hearn <hearn@vinumeris.com>
To: Adam Back <adam@cypherspace.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113fb1e463c2a20520cd2a7f
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Let's deploy BIP65 CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY!
Precedence: list

--001a113fb1e463c2a20520cd2a7f
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

>
> The rationale for soft vs hard-forks is well known, so I wont go over them.
>

The rationale of "backwards compatibility" is well known, yet wrong. I've
gone over the arguments here and explained why the concept makes no sense:

https://medium.com/@octskyward/on-consensus-and-forks-c6a050c792e7

Eric - no, it's not sophisticated humour. I've been objecting to soft forks
since this idea first appeared.

There is no consensus. Now pick. Lose the requirement that everyone agree
for consensus changes, and tell people you've done it. Change the spec. Or
do nothing.

--001a113fb1e463c2a20520cd2a7f
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><blo=
ckquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left=
-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;paddi=
ng-left:1ex">The rationale for soft vs hard-forks is well known, so I wont =
go over them.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>The rationale of &quot;ba=
ckwards compatibility&quot; is well known, yet wrong. I&#39;ve gone over th=
e arguments here and explained why the concept makes no sense:</div><div><b=
r></div><div><a href=3D"https://medium.com/@octskyward/on-consensus-and-for=
ks-c6a050c792e7">https://medium.com/@octskyward/on-consensus-and-forks-c6a0=
50c792e7</a><br></div><div><br></div><div>Eric - no, it&#39;s not sophistic=
ated humour. I&#39;ve been objecting to soft forks since this idea first ap=
peared.</div><div><br></div><div>There is no consensus. Now pick. Lose the =
requirement that everyone agree for consensus changes, and tell people you&=
#39;ve done it. Change the spec. Or do nothing.</div></div></div></div>

--001a113fb1e463c2a20520cd2a7f--