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
|
Return-Path: <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C5F6DB88
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 27 Jun 2015 10:13:51 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-wi0-f176.google.com (mail-wi0-f176.google.com
[209.85.212.176])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 01196121
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 27 Jun 2015 10:13:50 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by wiga1 with SMTP id a1so35251902wig.0
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 27 Jun 2015 03:13:49 -0700 (PDT)
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=p3nptHPS1oCjVH8LclvIvQ2X0FV7+mg+fUaGlAQEl+E=;
b=IWRVtvugUL+OPrYvQGv0v55b+Aeg5/zSSaR5KT/mCr1sIE8juihTkmgj0OWWVK71lW
JxSRvcgF9ZOjKvE+OoRQcr29DFZF1dKLVYHaTU804EhrMRqOq1hzYB6Jv/kv4TWEIffx
44KhMRc7NM+DgrQsi6qbprtNy5BwfTqdHOH6Q3UlThxJHYmv51wYIur1yMSJQ8KbC9OT
3WxOBaj5aaXSPxZE6xoWWVkZqGuh3sz+1IWyUq/9xu3tQPQW/tn77yEt1/CCsI2lgoKB
Oy2Ic6hnv9N2RHjhvO9IOdwooOzj9umo4qAjYYVEMsakg5vsFRCZHzUKbuUfb9kdNAoW
qlLA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkzn92LyHKulrhBn6jZ3VqZN5CvUzvKtKbmX6Tt1azPTVcKDpKSnlBpKJj0aiHOT3U1Hm6f
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.194.120.198 with SMTP id le6mr10877307wjb.133.1435400029694;
Sat, 27 Jun 2015 03:13:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.194.95.168 with HTTP; Sat, 27 Jun 2015 03:13:49 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20150627074259.GA25420@amethyst.visucore.com>
References: <CAPg+sBjOj9eXiDG0F6G54SVKkStF_1HRu2wzGqtFF5X_NAWy4w@mail.gmail.com>
<20150627074259.GA25420@amethyst.visucore.com>
Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2015 12:13:49 +0200
Message-ID: <CABm2gDr3orTHMN1q8vGmy3NpXWPy5i=zHhGneDGUk=ney3-e+Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
To: "Wladimir J. van der Laan" <laanwj@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,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@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] The need for larger blocks
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: Sat, 27 Jun 2015 10:13:52 -0000
On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 9:43 AM, Wladimir J. van der Laan
<laanwj@gmail.com> wrote:
> By expecting a few developers to make controversial decisions you are breaking the expectations, as well as making life dangerous for those developers. I'll jump ship before being forced to merge an even remotely controversial hardfork.
Obviously those who claim that you or "committers" or "developers" are
in control of the consensus rules are far from understanding this
life-threatening part. If you, Gavin or anyone becomes "the president
of bitcoin" he will likely get killed, or kidnapped, or get his family
kidnapped, or tortured...
> The stressful conditions of last weeks have thus made me hostile toward the idea of hardforks. At least to hardforks that make politically loaded changes.
I fully agree with what you've said but there's an argument I
sympathize with: "hardforks must be possible". Otherwise it seems that
the system is "eventually obsolete by design".
Provided they're also uncontroversial, they don't need to be that
different (in terms of deployment) from softforks. Since they risks
are bigger you just need to give more time for users and alternative
software to upgrade.
I would really like deploying an uncontroversial hardfork to prove
nobody wants them to be impossible, as explained in:
http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-June/008936.html
I hear people claiming that "hardforks must be possible" here and
there, see this example:
http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3awomg/how_the_bitcoin_experiment_might_fail/csgonlm
> Wladimir
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1
>
> iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJVjlOMAAoJEHSBCwEjRsmmveAH+wWN6j+0LsLibl2XWs3hxs64
> nOT63JMNEIYzSsxZkEkzU4AWsdPG8TWXeaYhaR5rd7pXspFHHFYpPNxyOAWB4nY9
> yS9eI4JRkOLtZY+rulFppkvnpggL82MFcT5rMNom+S1+EKE6C1NFqXl+OzZqatWL
> pysza7ZHg/d3hKWkm/JtlfTYTOgrxFIX6INghfQiOl2hEyXE5iZF8+CRnZQA4dG7
> jr/Jn2H4EzkUF8SDYVkIYsX+hPL5ib9mMm12ZXH8M8lFkdwweJCwbA7tVtNoalG3
> dzHb/8rotlqiDTNuLIlB7TE4maivcr2cXVKTfry6HBRJvNf0cD3oP67vCQj6iis=
> =pipo
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
|
