summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/07/ae57bfccb2032d5bd4094bb2a581d00cc74b65
blob: 3e92a0d60ec5a1481f4096a08a73b516c26be458 (plain)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
	helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
	by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <gavinandresen@gmail.com>) id 1QwHhW-0003RD-0p
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Wed, 24 Aug 2011 17:57:18 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 74.125.82.175 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=74.125.82.175; envelope-from=gavinandresen@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-wy0-f175.google.com; 
Received: from mail-wy0-f175.google.com ([74.125.82.175])
	by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76) id 1QwHhV-0003y1-A1
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Wed, 24 Aug 2011 17:57:17 +0000
Received: by wyf19 with SMTP id 19so1549907wyf.34
	for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
	Wed, 24 Aug 2011 10:57:11 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.227.10.206 with SMTP id q14mr1793923wbq.33.1314208631145; Wed,
	24 Aug 2011 10:57:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.227.181.194 with HTTP; Wed, 24 Aug 2011 10:57:11 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAJ1JLttqEnCjALadESmpntxSobD8Lj1zcXL4S7ghqdhyBrwVNw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABsx9T1uw43JuvhEmJP0KCyojsDi1r7v6BaLBHz7wWazduE5iw@mail.gmail.com>
	<201108241215.36847.luke@dashjr.org>
	<CAAS2fgQspsXy1Vw=fNr1FvsDRkEbP6dEcFLgUpK9DrBKXyiWNg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJ1JLtsxPG9v-Hwdb-pfgY6GU0Z4it+frFzw_tObVbNC6Xgdjw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAS2fgTARAMqMu79Sp4XS4KxmUBWiXebpavHWr-EdLZbxS=sTw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJ1JLttqEnCjALadESmpntxSobD8Lj1zcXL4S7ghqdhyBrwVNw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 13:57:11 -0400
Message-ID: <CABsx9T12R2dd=Ak7k4N+ZVAyLvJnx9oS0vVjwRa5T+UoCjbEMQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-)
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
	(gavinandresen[at]gmail.com)
	-0.0 SPF_PASS               SPF: sender matches SPF record
	-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
	0.0 T_TO_NO_BRKTS_FREEMAIL To: misformatted and free email service
X-Headers-End: 1QwHhV-0003y1-A1
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] New standard transaction types: time to
 schedule a blockchain split?
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: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 17:57:18 -0000

This discussion is convincing me that scheduling a blockchain split is
definitely the wrong idea at this time.  We can revisit in N months,
when we've got a roadmap and nice unit tests and a bunch of
well-tested patches for fixing all of the things that aught to be
fixed when we DO decide a blockchain split is necessary.

There seems to be rough consensus that new, imperfect standard
transactions are a good-enough short term solution.

-- 
--
Gavin Andresen