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
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
|
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 709D42219
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 5 Oct 2015 16:56:40 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-ig0-f175.google.com (mail-ig0-f175.google.com
[209.85.213.175])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4B55D1B9
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 5 Oct 2015 16:56:39 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by igcpb10 with SMTP id pb10so67576909igc.1
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 05 Oct 2015 09:56:38 -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=Se6s0egrg9CxtS4qkKeO7238cdeOUss+tmvHMvNfsRM=;
b=B7XVL4WHfnu1651TIA5yzNzEjpWw/jWkv8Cp8mGppUn1dddQcg3muycFz30LAS6Ouk
tAwA0RrLeEKPthxfdZcPpbo5gRp8iAHAFtDDnZJNakXHBL+k11cFWveKou26kBJFlKix
V4ttepott6c+94SJN/raZJgqa7Bsqj8iTnmkI=
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=Se6s0egrg9CxtS4qkKeO7238cdeOUss+tmvHMvNfsRM=;
b=dPWuLuC3/rGWrJpgqcYtTFRU4gAJ4VVfTs9zARRYeXhdPaNqnD/Tg81lJ9WJshYdpP
PWffGRvK6vD7UWzt3PjgMU0GDXgJ8XiH30W9ewuhfs5ZO1jFVOw2iwirdoB+vCbyrvNq
jp/0Cqty2zOK+4VACCl5eFDbt71LgVzI3TdmKUZky/5sBTY/bSc0CEu8AYIAc6G/GvGt
2SFIRRGXwXihq4e9jX+5ocTA0nPun1vR59JcpZ08vmJ0M/nqb0/aRE+/uBegyfIKo8Zl
TDlWxNbLkUUuD+FHH93o9W8FHlrXub1XBXyxv2ZCOpd2sEWXcpqNP11segkBELIa+wC5
zTVg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQl5axUxR4LJhTREx2zoM/TVD4Eljez3M/CcHqqeCvKSLmQHSYhRfgLAYg6ZeKuXufpn9oxw
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.111.231 with SMTP id il7mr9074502igb.34.1444064198803;
Mon, 05 Oct 2015 09:56:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.50.123.166 with HTTP; Mon, 5 Oct 2015 09:56:38 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAKzdR-rPoByn=+CgsTc1ZnLkjwtYyJnbQLbn-VHOvz0dLciefQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAKzdR-rPoByn=+CgsTc1ZnLkjwtYyJnbQLbn-VHOvz0dLciefQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2015 18:56:38 +0200
Message-ID: <CA+w+GKSNa3TWgHXrp3=3gXdAbE6vVjW_uzus3_2YG9gzKJSskg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mike Hearn <hearn@vinumeris.com>
To: Sergio Demian Lerner <sergio.d.lerner@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b4142c89a521f05215e65ca
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] This thread is not about the soft/hard fork
technical debate
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, 05 Oct 2015 16:56:40 -0000
--047d7b4142c89a521f05215e65ca
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Hey Sergio,
To clarify: my *single* objection is that CLTV should be a hard fork. I
haven't been raising never-ending technical objections, there's only one.
I *have* been answering all the various reasons being brought up why I'm
wrong and soft forks are awesome .... and there do seem to be a limitless
number of such emails .... but on my side it's still just a single
objection. If CLTV is a hard fork then I won't be objecting anymore, right?
CLTV deployment is clearly controversial. Many developers other than me
have noted that hard forks are cleaner, and have other desirable
properties. I'm not the only one who sees a big question mark over soft
forks.
As everyone in the Bitcoin community has been clearly told that
controversial changes to the consensus rules must not happen, it's clear
that CLTV cannot happen in its current form.
Now I'll be frank - you are quite correct that I fully expect the Core
maintainers to ignore this controversy and do CLTV as a soft fork anyway.
I'm a cynic. I don't think "everyone must agree" is workable and have said
so from the start. Faced with a choice of going back on their public
statements or having to make changes to something they clearly want, I
expect them to redefine what "real consensus" means. I hope I'm wrong, but
if I'm not ..... well, at least everyone will see what Gavin and I have
been talking about for so many months.
But I'd rather the opcode is tweaked. There's real financial risks to a
soft fork.
--047d7b4142c89a521f05215e65ca
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr">Hey Sergio,<div><br></div><div>To clarify: my <i>single</i=
>=C2=A0objection is that CLTV should be a hard fork. I haven't been rai=
sing never-ending technical objections, there's only one.</div><div><br=
></div><div>I <i>have</i> been answering all the various reasons being brou=
ght up why I'm wrong and soft forks are awesome .... and there do seem =
to be a limitless number of such emails .... but on my side it's still =
just a single objection. If CLTV is a hard fork then I won't be objecti=
ng anymore, right?</div><div><br></div><div>CLTV deployment is clearly cont=
roversial. Many developers other than me have noted that hard forks are cle=
aner, and have other desirable properties. I'm not the only one who see=
s a big question mark over soft forks.</div><div><br></div><div>As everyone=
in the Bitcoin community has been clearly told that controversial changes =
to the consensus rules must not happen, it's clear that CLTV cannot hap=
pen in its current form.</div><div><br></div><div><div>Now I'll be fran=
k - you are quite correct that I fully expect the Core maintainers to ignor=
e this controversy and do CLTV as a soft fork anyway. I'm a cynic. I do=
n't think "everyone must agree" is workable and have said so =
from the start. Faced with a choice of going back on their public statement=
s or having to make changes to something they clearly want, I expect them t=
o redefine what "real consensus" means. I hope I'm wrong, but=
if I'm not ..... well, at least everyone will see what Gavin and I hav=
e been talking about for so many months.</div></div><div><br></div><div>But=
I'd rather the opcode is tweaked. There's real financial risks to =
a soft fork.</div></div>
--047d7b4142c89a521f05215e65ca--
|
