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
|
Return-Path: <luke@dashjr.org>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 59779EA9
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 8 Feb 2016 22:58:50 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from zinan.dashjr.org (zinan.dashjr.org [192.3.11.21])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0001411C
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 8 Feb 2016 22:58:49 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from ishibashi.localnet (unknown
[IPv6:2001:470:5:265:61b6:56a6:b03d:28d6])
(Authenticated sender: luke-jr)
by zinan.dashjr.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C7F2B38A9098;
Mon, 8 Feb 2016 22:57:36 +0000 (UTC)
X-Hashcash: 1:25:160208:pete@petertodd.org::9SiNhjYLQOtrEa95:QsD8
X-Hashcash: 1:25:160208:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org::aC+PVQ3c3LlOO1cv:hz=Hi
X-Hashcash: 1:25:160208:gavinandresen@gmail.com::hJuP6/nyC0bsN3qz:aCsIH
From: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org>
To: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2016 22:57:34 +0000
User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/4.1.13-gentoo; KDE/4.14.8; x86_64; ; )
References: <201602082217.57146.luke@dashjr.org>
<20160208224100.GA25684@savin.petertodd.org>
In-Reply-To: <20160208224100.GA25684@savin.petertodd.org>
X-PGP-Key-Fingerprint: E463 A93F 5F31 17EE DE6C 7316 BD02 9424 21F4 889F
X-PGP-Key-ID: BD02942421F4889F
X-PGP-Keyserver: hkp://pgp.mit.edu
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
charset="iso-8859-15"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <201602082257.36009.luke@dashjr.org>
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_SBL,
RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=no 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] BIP Final status
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, 08 Feb 2016 22:58:50 -0000
On Monday, February 08, 2016 10:41:00 PM Peter Todd wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 08, 2016 at 10:17:55PM +0000, Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> > Additionally, https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/315 proposes to
> > upgrade five additional from Draft to Final status, and preferably needs
> > ACKs from the champions of the BIPs:
> >
> > BIP 50: March 2013 Chain Fork Post-Mortem, by Gavin Andresen
>
> It may be good to update BIP 50 with the new information that calling it
> a "hard fork" misses subtleties about what happened during that fork. In
> particular, 0.7 rejection of the chain was non-deterministic, based on
> having seen a re-org in a specific way.
I agree BIP 50 could use some rephrasing, but the May 2013 change was
definitely a hardfork, despite the problems with the pre-March protocol.
Luke
|
