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
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
|
Return-Path: <tier.nolan@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 18B05279
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 17 Jul 2015 22:25:08 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-qg0-f41.google.com (mail-qg0-f41.google.com
[209.85.192.41])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 88F30143
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 17 Jul 2015 22:25:07 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by qgy5 with SMTP id 5so53690491qgy.3
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 17 Jul 2015 15:25:06 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:cc
:content-type; bh=WCUwof2gfO4gJfGhS9wqqpSWkakVBZXqWXOT0Dy4tU4=;
b=pkao9sSivVYFe4CWF0jM4yAsE+eA8ekm8j0q9Lv/S0wduXkpMNvghsjg/NOQ4YruK3
xa/mVYhvqPDFC/MZ7e0X84DxwByJqGkSAlYMRAnRcqqsBQQcEmpXN+kuUL0nyIJn3c+U
RN7HGuZxAlzLQsxFUUhWZq8nv+xDdMzUj22zYm2F9B3S6jdF7L8s8L2v/g3jeLUiyFke
LHd3aOgsCiNNXmQIurl4ef+E5liyKWwU2aeA5iFY+ROd109Qw/DAiPHaaQ3NVSug/Oqq
Uw2ORIR8ey59f/BD4/131pZ9bcUeM+YNirQHJlyOwoflGBuDgplVo9OWFIFrTiYiVdoR
mC9Q==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.140.217.149 with SMTP id n143mr23754441qhb.9.1437171906745;
Fri, 17 Jul 2015 15:25:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.140.93.162 with HTTP; Fri, 17 Jul 2015 15:25:06 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <201507172029.17056.luke@dashjr.org>
References: <CADm_WcZKoMAhYvXbFMbE+5K9HOD75YkQu8_qTW4S6YN6ZMrfjA@mail.gmail.com>
<201507172029.17056.luke@dashjr.org>
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2015 23:25:06 +0100
Message-ID: <CAE-z3OWZdi2K6k-J063pqUgbBep0ELuZ1rm83wR5ox=kZ8CUQA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Tier Nolan <tier.nolan@gmail.com>
Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11373518fb9ea5051b19a853
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, HTML_MESSAGE,
MALFORMED_FREEMAIL,
MISSING_HEADERS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=no version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP 102 - kick the can down the road to 2MB
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2015 22:25:08 -0000
--001a11373518fb9ea5051b19a853
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 9:29 PM, Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org> wrote:
> Hardforks are not something where voting makes sense. They need consensus
> among /nodes/, not majority among /miners/. No hardfork has ever had such a
> vote.
>
Agreed.
I meant that since some of the new hard fork proposals use a voting system
for activation, they may not want to establish that precedent.
--001a11373518fb9ea5051b19a853
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">On F=
ri, Jul 17, 2015 at 9:29 PM, Luke Dashjr <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"m=
ailto:luke@dashjr.org" target=3D"_blank">luke@dashjr.org</a>></span> wro=
te:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-=
left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Hardforks are not something where vot=
ing makes sense. They need consensus<br>
among /nodes/, not majority among /miners/. No hardfork has ever had such a=
<br>
vote.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Agreed.<br><br>I meant that since=
some of the new hard fork proposals use a voting system for activation, th=
ey may not want to establish that precedent.</div></div></div></div>
--001a11373518fb9ea5051b19a853--
|
