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
|
Return-Path: <lf-lists@mattcorallo.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D4059A48
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 16 Oct 2016 17:05:05 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail.bluematt.me (mail.bluematt.me [192.241.179.72])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B964CA7
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 16 Oct 2016 17:05:04 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [172.17.0.2] (gw.vpn.bluematt.me [162.243.132.6])
by mail.bluematt.me (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9E97B134545;
Sun, 16 Oct 2016 17:05:02 +0000 (UTC)
To: Tom Zander <tomz@freedommail.ch>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
References: <CAPg+sBjdyJ297-GZvVc-wQwCEX-cRAGTNWDd92SgVzdCcD_ZMw@mail.gmail.com>
<1782741.nelbyupFSb@strawberry>
<CABsx9T2sWKFKpRYsjcgcdef+nL7X9-4+3H10hAy1FsXaax38Og@mail.gmail.com>
<1476639436.uo9cdjJaci@strawberry>
From: Matt Corallo <lf-lists@mattcorallo.com>
Message-ID: <5803B33B.2090809@mattcorallo.com>
Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2016 17:04:59 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/38.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1476639436.uo9cdjJaci@strawberry>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] On the security of soft forks
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol 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: Sun, 16 Oct 2016 17:05:05 -0000
I highly recommend you read the excellent thread on soft fork risks at
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-December/012014.html
and respond there instead of getting off topic for this thread.
Matt
On 10/16/16 16:42, Tom Zander via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> On Sunday, 16 October 2016 12:35:58 CEST Gavin Andresen wrote:
>> On Sun, Oct 16, 2016 at 10:58 AM, Tom Zander via bitcoin-dev <
>>
>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>> The fallow period sounds waaaay to short. I suggest 2 months at minimum
>>> since anyone that wants to be safe needs to upgrade.
>>
>> I asked a lot of businesses and individuals how long it would take them to
>> upgrade to a new release over the last year or two.
>>
>> Nobody said it would take them more than two weeks.
>
> The question you asked them was likely about the block size. The main
> difference is that SPV users do not need to update after BIP109, but they do
> need to have a new wallet when SegWit transactions are being sent to them.
>
> This upgrade affects also end users, not just businesses etc.
>
> Personally, I'd say that 2 months is even too fast.
>
>
|
