summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/f9/fa354fd010e0a23b89553a2211a32311155dbd
blob: 3f4f22966cc68540561d6cefc5e842806e03f825 (plain)
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
Return-Path: <bram@bittorrent.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
	[172.17.192.35])
	by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1D01B481
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Wed, 29 Mar 2017 06:32:23 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-it0-f48.google.com (mail-it0-f48.google.com
	[209.85.214.48])
	by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EF704124
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Wed, 29 Mar 2017 06:32:21 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-it0-f48.google.com with SMTP id e75so82159358itd.1
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Tue, 28 Mar 2017 23:32:21 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
	d=bittorrent-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623;
	h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to; 
	bh=Wmeyxtnf6SPrfhySVjjcvMCwg8ARJOAnpjECyWJi+9s=;
	b=mhs8PaWdwCWnUpf23vzWod/y699BcYjwLs+2wT80qceW4LhQRGtGvMKmICO5i60krA
	lllEe149ljU7jMxZGGFGzuMm5VCvRxDbMdaTY6SAAeuYT0JF2VfbBIKTN9II4BC3S1e6
	Wy9KnlhufMu3pgRjNnLas7R+4AIFjO1DSCxLUlZvuSl7iS4AAMEH/6D9EA3bqJDek8Kq
	b8M4IYTKwFVjB5osnfa52tS8V4DVVcuhvMCJ25wTe4NLHCfxJomeylfCflTYgumrDg8D
	7rpmeaQPtYxcUAs4zpO6cSbvdqOKixJEKxyF1dfncupFYyWqfKGuRY15Vk4hHvSp73ee
	06sg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
	d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
	h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date
	:message-id:subject:to;
	bh=Wmeyxtnf6SPrfhySVjjcvMCwg8ARJOAnpjECyWJi+9s=;
	b=OvCqKwbSs3yO6CSomkD/IYvVEpBpZPxyq/YE4nXxsVl2ZDK25JAtQPRsJxy3WujoMN
	9l4Qe9AOnryXq1aZTAhnCTVLUUbsPd+HikaTK1FlQhwbP5+dbLiVR1thgGvhPhTd5tg0
	7OgXsOBkeiEqayEHebkVAbmU+uycYrqiOaUkfLdFyPUfodX2LTM8Huklue5Y2DF1VukT
	5GSBcrfgGjEHfkgDdXCBKgp/eVKf0HhKT7Ici56QmN9dzYpGwq3zUTtUi+HwKJ8lQshk
	EIMDBGVY8AdCDYIsfiEcV+1gkoLGDDNPz+6fa3RTEQFH535EzC/5F2yx/nN0c9FC2wua
	CLvw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H3GRbwFlCkW/jqh+VTG+S3S066Xx67nb4qW8d6SsXayKYuqNBI2FqslZa8kYM5TcS0MVaWXRIxgKOIHlHLB
X-Received: by 10.107.164.36 with SMTP id n36mr29650040ioe.103.1490769141371; 
	Tue, 28 Mar 2017 23:32:21 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.36.184.70 with HTTP; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 23:32:20 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAFzgq-xizPMNqfvW11nUhd6HmfZu8aGjcR9fshEsf6o5HOt_dA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAFzgq-xizPMNqfvW11nUhd6HmfZu8aGjcR9fshEsf6o5HOt_dA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Bram Cohen <bram@bittorrent.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 23:32:20 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+KqGkpFW8qDPVgY+11o_CC+6FMWUNUZ7REHJKYM9-3wbrUwYw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Wang Chun <1240902@gmail.com>, 
	Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a114220ac1d7ba6054bd8bd94
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
	DKIM_VALID, HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,
	RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM autolearn=no version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
	smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Hard fork proposal from last week's meeting
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, 29 Mar 2017 06:32:23 -0000

--001a114220ac1d7ba6054bd8bd94
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 9:59 AM, Wang Chun via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

>
> The basic idea is, as many of us agree, hard fork is risky and should
> be well prepared. We need a long time to deploy it.
>

Much as it may be appealing to repeal the block size limit now with a grace
period until a replacement is needed in a repeal and replace strategy, it's
dubious to assume that an idea can be agreed upon later when it can't be
agreed upon now. Trying to put a time limit on it runs into the possibility
that you'll find that whatever reasons there were for not having general
agreement on a new setup before still apply, and running into the
embarrassing situation of winding up sticking with the status quo after
much sturm and drang.

--001a114220ac1d7ba6054bd8bd94
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">On T=
ue, Mar 28, 2017 at 9:59 AM, Wang Chun via bitcoin-dev <span dir=3D"ltr">&l=
t;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank=
">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquot=
e class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc sol=
id;padding-left:1ex"><br>
The basic idea is, as many of us agree, hard fork is risky and should<br>
be well prepared. We need a long time to deploy it.<br></blockquote><div><b=
r></div><div>Much as it may be appealing to repeal the block size limit now=
 with a grace period until a replacement is needed in a repeal and replace =
strategy, it&#39;s dubious to assume that an idea can be agreed upon later =
when it can&#39;t be agreed upon now. Trying to put a time limit on it runs=
 into the possibility that you&#39;ll find that whatever reasons there were=
 for not having general agreement on a new setup before still apply, and ru=
nning into the embarrassing situation of winding up sticking with the statu=
s quo after much sturm and drang.</div><div><br></div></div></div></div>

--001a114220ac1d7ba6054bd8bd94--