Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194]
	helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
	by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <laanwj@gmail.com>) id 1SEkLS-0007lO-0v
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Mon, 02 Apr 2012 16:43:06 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.210.46 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.210.46; envelope-from=laanwj@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-pz0-f46.google.com; 
Received: from mail-pz0-f46.google.com ([209.85.210.46])
	by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76) id 1SEkLM-0003ZX-D3
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Mon, 02 Apr 2012 16:43:05 +0000
Received: by dadz9 with SMTP id z9so3131868dad.33
	for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
	Mon, 02 Apr 2012 09:42:54 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.68.73.138 with SMTP id l10mr21806499pbv.22.1333384974500; Mon,
	02 Apr 2012 09:42:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.142.210.4 with HTTP; Mon, 2 Apr 2012 09:42:54 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CA+8xBpep_gvX8Tp-srwFtvdzCyWFfXeR_e_P27CgVoXZj+frcQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20120402152259.GA19853@vps7135.xlshosting.net>
	<CA+8xBpep_gvX8Tp-srwFtvdzCyWFfXeR_e_P27CgVoXZj+frcQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2012 18:42:54 +0200
Message-ID: <CA+s+GJCK=HtrNFA_nByFBdEP9NuiUD4ZG+8gf-0VJ=PjWWp0JA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Wladimir <laanwj@gmail.com>
To: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@exmulti.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d041b4a82c103f604bcb4e1bb
X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
	See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
	-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
	sender-domain
	0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
	(laanwj[at]gmail.com)
	-0.0 SPF_PASS               SPF: sender matches SPF record
	1.0 HTML_MESSAGE           BODY: HTML included in message
	-0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from
	author's domain
	0.1 DKIM_SIGNED            Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
	not necessarily valid
	-0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
X-Headers-End: 1SEkLM-0003ZX-D3
Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Network version increase
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2012 16:43:06 -0000

--f46d041b4a82c103f604bcb4e1bb
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 6:32 PM, Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@exmulti.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 11:23 AM, Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Any opinions about a numbering scheme? Currently the value 60000 is
> used. We could
> > simply start increasing the number one by one now for every change, or
> we could
> > do a "cleanup" to 100000 first, and start incrementing from there.
>
>
> It would be nice to have 100000 as the baseline, "frozen" protocol.
>

Yes, I think increasing with one is enough for now. Let's not get ahead of
ourselves :)

Wladimir

--f46d041b4a82c103f604bcb4e1bb
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 6:32 PM, Jeff Gar=
zik <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:jgarzik@exmulti.com">jgarzik@ex=
multi.com</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">
<div class=3D"im">On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 11:23 AM, Pieter Wuille &lt;<a hre=
f=3D"mailto:pieter.wuille@gmail.com">pieter.wuille@gmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:=
<br>
&gt; Any opinions about a numbering scheme? Currently the value 60000 is us=
ed. We could<br>
&gt; simply start increasing the number one by one now for every change, or=
 we could<br>
&gt; do a &quot;cleanup&quot; to 100000 first, and start incrementing from =
there.<br>
<br>
<br>
</div>It would be nice to have 100000 as the baseline, &quot;frozen&quot; p=
rotocol.<br></blockquote><div><br>Yes, I think increasing with one is enoug=
h for now. Let&#39;s not get ahead of ourselves :)<br><br>Wladimir<br>
<br></div></div>

--f46d041b4a82c103f604bcb4e1bb--