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
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
|
Return-Path: <hearn@vinumeris.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 39C471A42
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 28 Sep 2015 14:17:08 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-io0-f173.google.com (mail-io0-f173.google.com
[209.85.223.173])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AF64D1A0
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 28 Sep 2015 14:17:07 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by ioiz6 with SMTP id z6so175825433ioi.2
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 28 Sep 2015 07:17:07 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=vinumeris.com; s=google;
h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
:cc:content-type;
bh=RjiM/jz0BASZP64YrAJ5kLmHUtmkhClOjsPvLMu31GE=;
b=fk9inRsTAj2ysfTVqZGkgq1TOvcZrSNKvHLhzZposQrhz3lOVVrlGFbmM4GPytMbxA
7aeOFsDtAmKBWXpAoPv+yeAof98wR/pZ+B09paAtnPoO1v2WpSslRobz28v5lns57aKX
oQhruyGbXCKR8FTYDtEP1t+RkBOx/UQVeflXs=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date
:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type;
bh=RjiM/jz0BASZP64YrAJ5kLmHUtmkhClOjsPvLMu31GE=;
b=UEAMUIAnAQLKwIV0HKrBu9zP0yYnWVNF5pCSdr/xGUiDfBQr2heBn86FStjcqMV7ED
luMh9/WuZE7GKDA9yIZZhaRh/BxKqblnec7K0boOulg2qqnKLPR0wJz4SKfxCvF536IT
8RYut9tbqwOSlCLle/WPKfgxbwgcAgdHsofjq31WL0k7+/gO4CdTzjsKSsrcqegkjxud
gTxjlIRQKFgZoNk2OcAVCckylsuzBAXjTSKyuk73WKtl05qlM9grMfeE8n2bs9TZegLp
k2i9exdM6vpke1C+i+5SI7cXw3g3jsrIzM+M4s2XQaJxWzB4XHX/iWMcIoks1h0tZ/L1
l5YQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkzAeYvU4gbPMJU1qBAZKGeTKzl8A27Sd4d31UUW1AIIx1UWnUb/C9zCua1pnK2I/7RVJPw
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.107.137.144 with SMTP id t16mr19757881ioi.102.1443449826977;
Mon, 28 Sep 2015 07:17:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.50.226.144 with HTTP; Mon, 28 Sep 2015 07:17:06 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CADJgMzvCMPCto7fra+H=U3b9hCY7rCPDOV2DgOS4bLzz+PTLUg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20150927185031.GA20599@savin.petertodd.org>
<CA+w+GKRCVr-9TVk66utp7xLRgTxNpxYoj3XQE-6y_N8JS6eO6Q@mail.gmail.com>
<CALqxMTFEme9gYHTAVVLtFc4JCK4hoBLXEhMCRdEXK9cWso_pUA@mail.gmail.com>
<CA+w+GKQ8xos6S_BBMqZy6wieFCG=eNxahKXrx3mVKuZcxzjruw@mail.gmail.com>
<CADJgMzvCMPCto7fra+H=U3b9hCY7rCPDOV2DgOS4bLzz+PTLUg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2015 16:17:06 +0200
Message-ID: <CA+w+GKRK-_JQ3fEJFcO3t4Pr4HioWfqt-qbtFLxTSEnpLYnopA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mike Hearn <hearn@vinumeris.com>
To: Btc Drak <btcdrak@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113fb1e430579d0520cf5abb
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham
version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Let's deploy BIP65 CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY!
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: Mon, 28 Sep 2015 14:17:08 -0000
--001a113fb1e430579d0520cf5abb
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> 2. As for SPV wallets need to handle awareness of the new blocks.
>
There is simply no need for any wallets to change. Making the spec a hard
fork instead of a soft fork means all existing software does the right
thing automatically.
To repeat, please bear in mind that bitcoinj is no longer the only SPV
wallet implementation. BreadWallet has its own code in Objective-C and is
the second most popular SPV implementation (and growing). Additionally,
bitcoinj is incorporated into lots of apps that'd have to have new versions
released, some of which don't have any way to force a user to update.
So it's not just my time you'd waste: it's lots of different people's.
One thing I haven't seen yet is the justification for why a soft fork
should be used here. There's no requirement that it be so, and there are
real downsides. As Eric said, the fact that the mechanism has issues is not
under dispute.
The normal justification for this it's that it's forwards compatible. But
that's not a justification, that's a description.
Re: XT, I already addressed this above.
--001a113fb1e430579d0520cf5abb
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:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #c=
cc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div=
class=3D"gmail_quote">2. As for SPV wallets need to handle awareness of th=
e new blocks.<br></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>There i=
s simply no need for any wallets to change. Making the spec a hard fork ins=
tead of a soft fork means all existing software does the right thing automa=
tically.</div><div><br></div><div>To repeat, please bear in mind that bitco=
inj is no longer the only SPV wallet implementation. BreadWallet has its ow=
n code in Objective-C and is the second most popular SPV implementation (an=
d growing). Additionally, bitcoinj is incorporated into lots of apps that&#=
39;d have to have new versions released, some of which don't have any w=
ay to force a user to update.</div><div><br></div><div>So it's not just=
my time you'd waste: it's lots of different people's.</div><di=
v><br></div><div>One thing I haven't seen yet is the justification for =
why a soft fork should be used here. There's no requirement that it be =
so, and there are real downsides. As Eric said, the fact that the mechanism=
has issues is not under dispute.</div><div><br></div><div>The normal justi=
fication for this it's that it's forwards compatible. But that'=
s not a justification, that's a description.</div><div>=C2=A0</div><div=
>Re: XT, I already addressed this above.</div></div></div></div>
--001a113fb1e430579d0520cf5abb--
|
