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
|
Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <roy@gnomon.org.uk>) id 1YqTYb-0000Yl-Rz
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Thu, 07 May 2015 21:42:13 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gnomon.org.uk
designates 93.93.131.22 as permitted sender)
client-ip=93.93.131.22; envelope-from=roy@gnomon.org.uk;
helo=darla.gnomon.org.uk;
Received: from darla.gnomon.org.uk ([93.93.131.22])
by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256)
(Exim 4.76) id 1YqTYa-0006uI-9N
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Thu, 07 May 2015 21:42:13 +0000
Received: from darla.gnomon.org.uk (localhost.gnomon.org.uk [127.0.0.1])
by darla.gnomon.org.uk (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id t47Lg1nL066392
(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT);
Thu, 7 May 2015 22:42:06 +0100 (BST)
(envelope-from roy@darla.gnomon.org.uk)
Received: (from roy@localhost)
by darla.gnomon.org.uk (8.14.3/8.14.1/Submit) id t47Lg1lF066391;
Thu, 7 May 2015 22:42:01 +0100 (BST) (envelope-from roy)
Date: Thu, 7 May 2015 22:42:01 +0100
From: Roy Badami <roy@gnomon.org.uk>
To: Tier Nolan <tier.nolan@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20150507214200.GJ63100@giles.gnomon.org.uk>
References: <20150507200023.GI63100@giles.gnomon.org.uk>
<CAE-z3OVgX9S0sJqq-iFdkZn_wK-a=Vs4VpNwxpcagDEYFzNSDQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAE-z3OVgX9S0sJqq-iFdkZn_wK-a=Vs4VpNwxpcagDEYFzNSDQ@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-)
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 SPF_HELO_PASS SPF: HELO matches SPF record
-0.0 T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay
domain
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
0.5 AWL AWL: Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
X-Headers-End: 1YqTYa-0006uI-9N
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Mechanics of a hard fork
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: Thu, 07 May 2015 21:42:13 -0000
> On the other hand, if 99.99% of the miners updated and only 75% of
> merchants and 75% of users updated, then that would be a serioud split of
> the network.
But is that a plausible scenario? Certainly *if* the concensus rules
required a 99% supermajority of miners for the hard fork to go ahead,
then there would be absoltely no rational reason for merchants and
users to refuse to upgrade, even if they don't support the changes
introduces by the hard fork. Their only choice, if the fork succeeds,
is between the active chain and the one that is effectively stalled -
and, of course, they can make that choice ahead of time.
roy
|
