Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1UgAh6-0004So-Bt for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sat, 25 May 2013 09:23:20 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.215.44 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.215.44; envelope-from=melvincarvalho@gmail.com; helo=mail-la0-f44.google.com; Received: from mail-la0-f44.google.com ([209.85.215.44]) by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1UgAh5-0000V1-2o for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sat, 25 May 2013 09:23:20 +0000 Received: by mail-la0-f44.google.com with SMTP id fr10so5237019lab.31 for ; Sat, 25 May 2013 02:23:12 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.152.22.4 with SMTP id z4mr10507648lae.37.1369473792241; Sat, 25 May 2013 02:23:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.112.190.67 with HTTP; Sat, 25 May 2013 02:23:12 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <201305250853.19603.luke@dashjr.org> References: <201305250853.19603.luke@dashjr.org> Date: Sat, 25 May 2013 11:23:12 +0200 Message-ID: From: Melvin Carvalho To: Luke-Jr Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0158b8e2ea76fe04dd8776b3 X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (melvincarvalho[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature X-Headers-End: 1UgAh5-0000V1-2o Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] (no subject) X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 25 May 2013 09:23:20 -0000 --089e0158b8e2ea76fe04dd8776b3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On 25 May 2013 10:53, Luke-Jr wrote: > On Saturday, May 25, 2013 8:25:35 AM Melvin Carvalho wrote: > > It might be an idea to have 'rule change' fixes and 'bug fix' releases go > > out separately > > Bitcoin is a consensus system. You can't run clients with different rules > on > the same blockchain/network - it just won't work! Maybe we're now talking > about mere client default policies? In which case, you should be able to > configure previous behaviour... > [[ Not wishing to stray too far off topic ]] I think you are perhaps underestimating the effect of 'mere' default policies. It would be nice to think that every node was a free thinking individual that is motivated to vote with their feet, but in practice most people dont have time. There is research showing that 80% of users tend to accept defaults. Rule changes and changing defaults would seem to be things worth weighing. Bug fixes hopefully should be fairly unanimous. Of course a grey area exists in between. > > If you want just bug fixes and rule changes, without policy default > changes, > new features, etc, you can use the 0.4.x - 0.7.x backports. But be advised > these are short-term solutions and won't be maintained forever - so you > really > should try to get the behaviour you want from the current release. If you > can't for some reason, please do report a bug explaining what it is the > older > version was capable of that the new one isn't! > > Luke > --089e0158b8e2ea76fe04dd8776b3 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable



On 25 May 2013 10:53, Luke-Jr <luke@dashjr.org> wrote:=
On Saturday, May 25, 2013 8:25:35 AM Melvin Carvalho wrot= e:
> It might be an idea to have 'rule change' fixes and 'bug f= ix' releases go
> out separately

Bitcoin is a consensus system. You can't run clients with differe= nt rules on
the same blockchain/network - it just won't work! Maybe we're now t= alking
about mere client default policies? In which case, you should be able to configure previous behaviour...

[[ Not = wishing to stray too far off topic ]]

I think = you are perhaps underestimating the effect of 'mere' default polici= es.=A0

It would be nice to think that every node was a free thinkin= g individual that is motivated to vote with their feet, but in practice mos= t people dont have time.

There is research showing that 8= 0% of users tend to accept defaults.

Rule changes and changing defaults would seem to be things w= orth weighing.=A0 Bug fixes hopefully should be fairly unanimous.=A0 Of cou= rse a grey area exists in between.
=A0

If you want just bug fixes and rule changes, without policy default changes= ,
new features, etc, you can use the 0.4.x - 0.7.x backports. But be advised<= br> these are short-term solutions and won't be maintained forever - so you= really
should try to get the behaviour you want from the current release. If you can't for some reason, please do report a bug explaining what it is the= older
version was capable of that the new one isn't!

Luke

--089e0158b8e2ea76fe04dd8776b3--