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
|
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 6D9B716F5
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 28 Sep 2015 10:48:58 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-ig0-f174.google.com (mail-ig0-f174.google.com
[209.85.213.174])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F1A63100
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 28 Sep 2015 10:48:57 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by igcpb10 with SMTP id pb10so52244144igc.1
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 28 Sep 2015 03:48:57 -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=LibkSKpp1e8uT09TAxLouFQb7Qlkg4buv8D6VA2UZHE=;
b=EbwmfCY7nOrw1byY9iWCloMXVgtShNnwzcZ7acCoJOM1EyX7IRHMiNQJ9tyxssNiC6
wI1pQ7SXUjeYsYi811fOWEsk5MEs5vDWUr2Zxkc86c0bkqA5/jQ8scAO5tidC1uCLfvS
jTK1TE32oE+gDecDTVl0pyNyB4ZyUzxyR0DF8=
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=LibkSKpp1e8uT09TAxLouFQb7Qlkg4buv8D6VA2UZHE=;
b=Ezodu5pnsvup6oknLTZ2j4Me2Uhk7V78HDZci0pHn3nviQhPnHhTCH/AXsyuv0tHq+
yEew3DqVnM86eDd+9ikceos2VZKT5qqI+0OBjqH5c07Ac0+J2ReQUUZb0EsMBGRDKbdb
N8Z3RHgFo7Ni6+0grFdFRkswKSPLXxnKCwyWcf4KS+UBekkG4rkNk7k4uwVUc/qLbfdD
dhLW9BzRGrrzA+om4BXYSs9byyWWRhDNyK5W4o1vT0KJvx05OU+dFM/yB5RiTGofWEzT
7G+6gi+QQnizl+8wkcUmft3PPxuoL2O3LujFuxuG6kayhLoPoSMjDpSXOQHKjXz6SIpA
6kRg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlmCheYw8CERY+bhpAHTSzxqy08GkN3gIboFTQv/W7PN1/AUZZAxOCb8QUNYwQb5wTwlDH9
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.79.232 with SMTP id m8mr1096649igx.83.1443437337403; Mon,
28 Sep 2015 03:48:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.50.226.144 with HTTP; Mon, 28 Sep 2015 03:48:57 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20150927185031.GA20599@savin.petertodd.org>
References: <20150927185031.GA20599@savin.petertodd.org>
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2015 12:48:57 +0200
Message-ID: <CA+w+GKRCVr-9TVk66utp7xLRgTxNpxYoj3XQE-6y_N8JS6eO6Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mike Hearn <hearn@vinumeris.com>
To: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e013a0606c086650520cc71af
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 10:48:58 -0000
--089e013a0606c086650520cc71af
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
There is *no* consensus on using a soft fork to deploy this feature. It
will result in the same problems as all the other soft forks - SPV wallets
will become less reliable during the rollout period. I am against that, as
it's entirely avoidable.
Make it a hard fork and my objection will be dropped.
Until then, as there is no consensus, you need to do one of two things:
1) Drop the "everyone must agree to make changes" idea that people here
like to peddle, and do it loudly, so everyone in the community is correctly
informed
2) Do nothing
--089e013a0606c086650520cc71af
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra">There is <b>no</b> consensus on=
using a soft fork to deploy this feature. It will result in the same probl=
ems as all the other soft forks - SPV wallets will become less reliable dur=
ing the rollout period. I am against that, as it's entirely avoidable.<=
/div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra">Make i=
t a hard fork and my objection will be dropped.</div><div class=3D"gmail_ex=
tra"><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra">Until then, as there is no consen=
sus, you need to do one of two things:</div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br>=
</div><div class=3D"gmail_extra">1) Drop the "everyone must agree to m=
ake changes" idea that people here like to peddle, and do it loudly, s=
o everyone in the community is correctly informed</div><div class=3D"gmail_=
extra"><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra">2) Do nothing</div><div class=
=3D"gmail_extra"><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br></div></div>
--089e013a0606c086650520cc71af--
|
