MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20130313175825.GA21242@vps7135.xlshosting.net>
References: <201303131256.30144.luke@dashjr.org>
	<CACh7GpE09hqCPL6rtdC6EZzohM5QHb+0SdFoD8MzPSqf7=6hOA@mail.gmail.com>
	<20130313175825.GA21242@vps7135.xlshosting.net>
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 11:27:13 -0700
Message-ID: <CACh7GpG_4uLUUiwJyZO0FtV2_UHMN-HnJsZZXWpC2jQvzb-jMQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mark Friedenbach <mark@monetize.io>
To: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8f64663f0e598204d7d28eea
Cc: "bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net"
	<bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] 0.8.1 ideas
Precedence: list

--e89a8f64663f0e598204d7d28eea
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

This may be a semantic issue. I meant that it's not a hard-fork of the
bitcoin protocol, which I'm taking to mean the way in which we all
*expected* every version of the Satoshi client to behave: the rules which
we have documented informally on the wiki, this mailing list, and in code
comments, etc. I'm just trying to prevent protocol-creep.

Luke-Jr is suggesting that we add-to/modify the bitcoin protocol rules
which all verifying implementations must adhere to. I'm suggesting that we
instead change the old codebase to do what we expected it to do all along
(what 0.8 does and what every other verifying implementation does), and
through miner collusion buy ourselves enough time for people to update
their own installations.

I know there's people here who will jump in saying that the bitcoin
protocol is the behavior of the Satoshi client, period. But which Satoshi
client? 0.7 or 0.8? How do you resolve that without being arbitrary? And
regardless, we are moving very quickly towards a multi-client future. This
problem is very clearly a *bug* in the old codebase. So let's be forward
thinking and do what we would do in any other situation: fix the bug,
responsibly notify people and give them time to react, then move on. Let's
not codify the bug in the protocol.

Mark


On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 10:58 AM, Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 10:41:29AM -0700, Mark Friedenbach wrote:
> > 4) At some point in the future once we've crossed an acceptable adoption
> > threshold, the miners remove the above patch in a coordinated way.
> >
> > Does that not get us past this crisis without a hard-fork?
>
> This is a hardfork: it means some nodes will have to accept blocks they
> formerly considered invalid.
>
> --
> Pieter
>

--e89a8f64663f0e598204d7d28eea
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div>This may be a semantic issue. I meant that it&#39;s n=
ot a hard-fork of the bitcoin protocol, which I&#39;m taking to mean the wa=
y in which we all *expected* every version of the Satoshi client to behave:=
 the rules which we have documented informally on the wiki, this mailing li=
st, and in code comments, etc. I&#39;m just trying to prevent protocol-cree=
p.<br>
<br>Luke-Jr is suggesting that we add-to/modify the bitcoin protocol rules =
which all verifying implementations must adhere to. I&#39;m suggesting that=
 we instead change the old codebase to do what we expected it to do all alo=
ng (what 0.8 does and what every other verifying implementation does), and =
through miner collusion buy ourselves enough time for people to update thei=
r own installations.<br>
<br>I know there&#39;s people here who will jump in saying that the bitcoin=
 protocol is the behavior of the Satoshi client, period. But which Satoshi =
client? 0.7 or 0.8? How do you resolve that without being arbitrary? And re=
gardless, we are moving very quickly towards a multi-client future. This pr=
oblem is very clearly a *bug* in the old codebase. So let&#39;s be forward =
thinking and do what we would do in any other situation: fix the bug, respo=
nsibly notify people and give them time to react, then move on. Let&#39;s n=
ot codify the bug in the protocol.<br>
<br></div>Mark<br><div><br></div></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><br><=
div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 10:58 AM, Pieter Wuille <=
span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:pieter.wuille@gmail.com" target=3D"_=
blank">pieter.wuille@gmail.com</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class=3D"im">On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 10=
:41:29AM -0700, Mark Friedenbach wrote:<br>
&gt; 4) At some point in the future once we&#39;ve crossed an acceptable ad=
option<br>
&gt; threshold, the miners remove the above patch in a coordinated way.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; Does that not get us past this crisis without a hard-fork?<br>
<br>
</div>This is a hardfork: it means some nodes will have to accept blocks th=
ey formerly considered invalid.<br>
<span class=3D"HOEnZb"><font color=3D"#888888"><br>
--<br>
Pieter<br>
</font></span></blockquote></div><br></div>

--e89a8f64663f0e598204d7d28eea--