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
|
Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <mh.in.england@gmail.com>) id 1XboGz-00058Y-7E
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Wed, 08 Oct 2014 10:15:09 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.218.48 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.218.48; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com;
helo=mail-oi0-f48.google.com;
Received: from mail-oi0-f48.google.com ([209.85.218.48])
by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1XboGy-0006gx-8F
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Wed, 08 Oct 2014 10:15:09 +0000
Received: by mail-oi0-f48.google.com with SMTP id g201so6911494oib.21
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Wed, 08 Oct 2014 03:15:02 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.60.51.71 with SMTP id i7mr11037173oeo.41.1412763302653; Wed,
08 Oct 2014 03:15:02 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com
Received: by 10.76.86.105 with HTTP; Wed, 8 Oct 2014 03:15:02 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <5434B873.1060406@thinlink.com>
References: <20141001130826.GM28710@savin.petertodd.org>
<CABbpET8_FMCcnh0dELnHsYmF+YP05Gz=nZ3SPkLZuqXYV3JUpQ@mail.gmail.com>
<1987325.zKPNeYyO8K@crushinator>
<201410031750.27323.luke@dashjr.org>
<CANEZrP1eGi-AHgciQiKUuUB7WwqKsMOyTjCQAAO=RWEkPC2Uiw@mail.gmail.com>
<CAJHLa0NRNEQLqA2E=ysXsKw6hWS-H9X_AFYK4ckC4-_Bk=qbSA@mail.gmail.com>
<20141004003850.GA23202@muck>
<CANEZrP0_jDouDCLn9BvxUd7UYiZLbVsaGGkkxwjcOYxZryBDPQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CABsx9T0Q8g9KYRbAvCV=35x5Rb5HFnrNkrwwMZ=Mv-namMEPpg@mail.gmail.com>
<5434B873.1060406@thinlink.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2014 12:15:02 +0200
X-Google-Sender-Auth: LttGB87-BahrDDBD-M9rrom9ErE
Message-ID: <CANEZrP3p+gF-38OchA_U2RJmy0F440ZibCihpsJLGr2e3f7cOw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
To: Tom Harding <tomh@thinlink.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c3048ace76350504e6966b
X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/)
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
(mh.in.england[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
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
X-Headers-End: 1XboGy-0006gx-8F
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] [BIP draft] CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY - Prevent
a txout from being spent until an expiration time
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, 08 Oct 2014 10:15:09 -0000
--001a11c3048ace76350504e6966b
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> Opinion: if a soft work works, it should be preferred, if for no other
> reason than once a hard-fork is planned, the discussion begins about
> what else to throw in. To minimize the frequency of hard-forks, the
> time for that is when the change being considered actually requires one.
I'm not sure why it'd be any different. Soft forks are just as disruptive -
everyone who needs a correct node has to upgrade on time. Given that, I
guess there will be a desire to roll out several changes at once too,
regardless of what happens to older nodes.
--001a11c3048ace76350504e6966b
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">Opinion: if a soft work works, it should be pref=
erred, if for no other<br>
reason than once a hard-fork is planned, the discussion begins about<br>
what else to throw in.=C2=A0 To minimize the frequency of hard-forks, the<b=
r>
time for that is when the change being considered actually requires one.</b=
lockquote><div><br></div><div>I'm not sure why it'd be any differen=
t. Soft forks are just as disruptive - everyone who needs a correct node ha=
s to upgrade on time. Given that, I guess there will be a desire to roll ou=
t several changes at once too, regardless of what happens to older nodes.</=
div></div></div></div>
--001a11c3048ace76350504e6966b--
|
