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
|
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 310E11686
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 28 Sep 2015 11:40:36 +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 BBD5D180
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 28 Sep 2015 11:40:35 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by ioii196 with SMTP id i196so172101002ioi.3
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 28 Sep 2015 04:40:35 -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=irMUBaX/ogG8dBAwEhyzNwP48M5woOrGD4SIJNuACrA=;
b=Nc1SdaZ1JA/vUErdmOH4dio/ES5FbbpSLCUPYqdOn9AmORA3RJeTBPAK7HAOtHCgtV
k19s3fbUXBxb22lXmtpYAwHlXgMxnKdwanOY800E5pxDcsuNdjNCtGoY/HXhosMfAIWl
1G9iAH03ZgTyE/+mzbyWB3GK9KB2M2mZw7byg=
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=irMUBaX/ogG8dBAwEhyzNwP48M5woOrGD4SIJNuACrA=;
b=M4K2aOu6bSfbfQbMtl4jtXEQxwQS547lRF5JigABaIz+eEFMrudu8gAS9X+lwZt5iC
XsuySt5l0LtQIYMwYwIKec520uJNL+p7F3NFP6q76FSHFmFQgIeOPXT2BB6dmvVMcVko
r7Rcsi2uNzPRmpZNKEjibQrkAMetuXCUa3BUeQCdnD0tt027WK9q3tzYkRDXNYB/XdDV
3/LPxYPpyLMvVMqA+VcoBBw+2Oz+Khe9c38csnm2Zpd4mrUsmSIWHIsD/njRFkfyYWBc
Lcr1Y30ANcpH3z0Cm+yb0x49lSv1HOypwuX11sz+F6xzvNpoQkLRHBFpnawyGBwN7ZAZ
ATHw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnHokwpgWOMoT6G+6A/AVd7atid7LkByJ1HrHJTWP+RsfXIW3Tj5JsSJD77xAKCpa5sGriB
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.107.137.144 with SMTP id t16mr18859501ioi.102.1443440435112;
Mon, 28 Sep 2015 04:40:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.50.226.144 with HTTP; Mon, 28 Sep 2015 04:40:35 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CALqxMTFEme9gYHTAVVLtFc4JCK4hoBLXEhMCRdEXK9cWso_pUA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20150927185031.GA20599@savin.petertodd.org>
<CA+w+GKRCVr-9TVk66utp7xLRgTxNpxYoj3XQE-6y_N8JS6eO6Q@mail.gmail.com>
<CALqxMTFEme9gYHTAVVLtFc4JCK4hoBLXEhMCRdEXK9cWso_pUA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2015 13:40:35 +0200
Message-ID: <CA+w+GKQ8xos6S_BBMqZy6wieFCG=eNxahKXrx3mVKuZcxzjruw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mike Hearn <hearn@vinumeris.com>
To: Adam Back <adam@cypherspace.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113fb1e463c2a20520cd2a7f
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 11:40:36 -0000
--001a113fb1e463c2a20520cd2a7f
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> The rationale for soft vs hard-forks is well known, so I wont go over them.
>
The rationale of "backwards compatibility" is well known, yet wrong. I've
gone over the arguments here and explained why the concept makes no sense:
https://medium.com/@octskyward/on-consensus-and-forks-c6a050c792e7
Eric - no, it's not sophisticated humour. I've been objecting to soft forks
since this idea first appeared.
There is no consensus. Now pick. Lose the requirement that everyone agree
for consensus changes, and tell people you've done it. Change the spec. Or
do nothing.
--001a113fb1e463c2a20520cd2a7f
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:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left=
-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;paddi=
ng-left:1ex">The rationale for soft vs hard-forks is well known, so I wont =
go over them.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>The rationale of "ba=
ckwards compatibility" is well known, yet wrong. I've gone over th=
e arguments here and explained why the concept makes no sense:</div><div><b=
r></div><div><a href=3D"https://medium.com/@octskyward/on-consensus-and-for=
ks-c6a050c792e7">https://medium.com/@octskyward/on-consensus-and-forks-c6a0=
50c792e7</a><br></div><div><br></div><div>Eric - no, it's not sophistic=
ated humour. I've been objecting to soft forks since this idea first ap=
peared.</div><div><br></div><div>There is no consensus. Now pick. Lose the =
requirement that everyone agree for consensus changes, and tell people you&=
#39;ve done it. Change the spec. Or do nothing.</div></div></div></div>
--001a113fb1e463c2a20520cd2a7f--
|
