Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2015 09:28:14 -0400
From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
To: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20150928132814.GB4829@savin.petertodd.org>
References: <20150927185031.GA20599@savin.petertodd.org>
	<CA+w+GKRCVr-9TVk66utp7xLRgTxNpxYoj3XQE-6y_N8JS6eO6Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABsx9T0XW_jGYhNw6t29AZXz1TxjuHjfEvsbdF5Ji7LUkFo4Ow@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="MfFXiAuoTsnnDAfZ"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CABsx9T0XW_jGYhNw6t29AZXz1TxjuHjfEvsbdF5Ji7LUkFo4Ow@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Let's deploy BIP65 CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY!
Precedence: list


--MfFXiAuoTsnnDAfZ
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 09:01:02AM -0400, Gavin Andresen wrote:
> I think three things need to happen:
>=20
> 1) Stop pretending that "everyone must agree to make consensus rule
> changes." "Rough consensus" is what we've always gone with, and is good
> enough.
>=20
> 2) Mr. Todd (or somebody) needs to write up a risk/benefit security
> tradeoff analysis doo-hickey document and publish it. I'm reasonably
> confident that the risks to SPV nodes can be mitigated (e.g. by deploying
> mempool-only first, before the soft fork rolls out), but as somebody who
> has only been moderately paying attention, BETTER COMMUNICATION is needed.
> What should SPV wallet authors be doing right now, if anything? Once the
> soft fork starts to roll out or activates, what do miners need to be aware
> of? SPV wallet authors?

Do you have such a document for your BIP101? That would save me a lot of
time, and the need for that kind of document is significantly higher
with BIP101 anyway.


Re: mempool, CLTV-using transactions are non-standard and are not
relayed in all Bitcoin Core releases. (see my pull-req #5000 -
Discourage NOPs reserved for soft-fork upgrades - for why) I believe
that meets your suggestion of deploying mempool-only first.

--=20
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
0000000000000000032420ad2987adc954df855f9ae10cf608e911b431f640e0

--MfFXiAuoTsnnDAfZ
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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==
=Fc47
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--MfFXiAuoTsnnDAfZ--