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
|
Return-Path: <tomz@freedommail.ch>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B1241905
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 5 Apr 2017 10:08:56 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mx-out01.mykolab.com (mx.kolabnow.com [95.128.36.1])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EE94D10A
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 5 Apr 2017 10:08:55 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at kolabnow.com
X-Spam-Score: -2.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW
autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
Received: from mx03.mykolab.com (mx03.mykolab.com [10.20.7.101])
by mx-out01.mykolab.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DB0DB6140B;
Wed, 5 Apr 2017 12:08:52 +0200 (CEST)
From: Tom Zander <tomz@freedommail.ch>
To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org, Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org>
Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2017 12:08:51 +0200
Message-ID: <2796215.bJP4rN4KYZ@strawberry>
In-Reply-To: <201704041801.51655.luke@dashjr.org>
References: <PU5yHaeZtxR5ManpM0q7ZIN1pElEorBfO09u7ZIC-h81mQizYCZ5qNv89Tb2ZLNHbCktmV65q2Xkm1K3UckvVZLOWBMW7-riWYRY4HtFe1A=@protonmail.com>
<201704041801.51655.luke@dashjr.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 05 Apr 2017 13:17:17 +0000
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP proposal: Generalized version bits voting
(bip-genvbvoting)
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol 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: Wed, 05 Apr 2017 10:08:56 -0000
On Tuesday, 4 April 2017 20:01:51 CEST Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> BIP 9 provides a mechanism for having
> miners coordinate softforks because they can make the upgrade process
> smoother this way. But the same is not true of hardforks: miners are
> essentially irrelevant to them, and cannot make the process any smoother.
Can you explain how miners are irrelevant if the upgrade is not a soft fork?
--
Tom Zander
Blog: https://zander.github.io
Vlog: https://vimeo.com/channels/tomscryptochannel
|
