MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CADm_WcbJoH27H9ckr5sfmE0gh7YbSjKr1uLse0s3b4GTT+jEAA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20150927185031.GA20599@savin.petertodd.org>
	<CA+w+GKRCVr-9TVk66utp7xLRgTxNpxYoj3XQE-6y_N8JS6eO6Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAS2fgSEDGBd67m7i8zCgNRqtmQrZyZMj7a5TsYo41Dh=tdhHQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+w+GKRKGS=KZrLtiW8Zbn4EQH_TELfQR+TfrADCMXLR22Q+tw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADm_WcbJoH27H9ckr5sfmE0gh7YbSjKr1uLse0s3b4GTT+jEAA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 21:56:01 +0200
Message-ID: <CA+w+GKS01sVXqNY6a39EjqL8NVO6k1Vq6sd0VZjeqF_tsx7OAA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mike Hearn <hearn@vinumeris.com>
To: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1141fb90eb91380520fc5121
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Let's deploy BIP65 CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY!
Precedence: list

--001a1141fb90eb91380520fc5121
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

>
> Field experience shows it successfully delivers new features to end users
> without a global software upgrade.
>

The global upgrade is required for all full nodes in both types. If a full
node doesn't upgrade then it no longer does what it was designed to do; if
the user is OK with that, they should just run an SPV wallet or use
blockchain.info or some other mechanism that consumes way fewer resources.

But if you want the software you installed to achieve its stated goal, you
*must* upgrade. There is no way around that.

Jorge has said soft forks always lead to network convergence. No, they
don't. You get constant mini divergences until everyone has upgraded, as
opposed to a single divergence with a hard fork (until everyone has
upgraded). The quantity of invalid blocks mined, on the other hand, is
identical in both types.

Adam has said "there is actually consensus", although I just said there
isn't. Feel free to say what you really mean here Adam - there's consensus
if you ignore people who don't agree, i.e. the concept of "developer
consensus" doesn't actually mean anything. This would contradict your prior
statements about how Bitcoin Core makes decisions, but alright ....

Finally John, I fully agree with what you wrote. Debates that never end are
bad news all round. Bitcoin Core has told the world it uses "developer
consensus" to make decisions. I don't agree that's a good way to do things,
but if Core wants to stick with it then there is no choice - as I am a
developer, and I do not agree with the change, there is no consensus and
the debate is over.

Hey, I have an idea. Maybe we should organise a conference about soft vs
hard forks. Let's have it down the road from where I live, a couple of
weeks from now. Please submit your talk titles to me so I can vet them to
ensure nobody does an offtopic talk ;)

--001a1141fb90eb91380520fc5121
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"><blo=
ckquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #c=
cc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra">Fiel=
d experience shows it successfully delivers new features to end users witho=
ut a global software upgrade.</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>T=
he global upgrade is required for all full nodes in both types. If a full n=
ode doesn&#39;t upgrade then it no longer does what it was designed to do; =
if the user is OK with that, they should just run an SPV wallet or use <a h=
ref=3D"http://blockchain.info">blockchain.info</a> or some other mechanism =
that consumes way fewer resources.</div><div><br></div><div>But if you want=
 the software you installed to achieve its stated goal, you <i>must</i>=C2=
=A0upgrade. There is no way around that.</div><div><br></div><div>Jorge has=
 said soft forks always lead to network convergence. No, they don&#39;t. Yo=
u get constant mini divergences until everyone has upgraded, as opposed to =
a single divergence with a hard fork (until everyone has upgraded). The qua=
ntity of invalid blocks mined, on the other hand, is identical in both type=
s.</div><div><br></div><div>Adam has said &quot;there is actually consensus=
&quot;, although I just said there isn&#39;t. Feel free to say what you rea=
lly mean here Adam - there&#39;s consensus if you ignore people who don&#39=
;t agree, i.e. the concept of &quot;developer consensus&quot; doesn&#39;t a=
ctually mean anything. This would contradict your prior statements about ho=
w Bitcoin Core makes decisions, but alright ....</div><div><br></div><div>F=
inally John, I fully agree with what you wrote. Debates that never end are =
bad news all round. Bitcoin Core has told the world it uses &quot;developer=
 consensus&quot; to make decisions. I don&#39;t agree that&#39;s a good way=
 to do things, but if Core wants to stick with it then there is no choice -=
 as I am a developer, and I do not agree with the change, there is no conse=
nsus and the debate is over.</div><div><br></div><div>Hey, I have an idea. =
Maybe we should organise a conference about soft vs hard forks. Let&#39;s h=
ave it down the road from where I live, a couple of weeks from now. Please =
submit your talk titles to me so I can vet them to ensure nobody does an of=
ftopic talk ;)</div></div></div></div>

--001a1141fb90eb91380520fc5121--