Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.215.45 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.215.45; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-la0-f45.google.com; 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <20141107000310.GA6532@savin.petertodd.org>
References: <20141106213215.GA12918@savin.petertodd.org>
	<A53D2C60-1D6A-4796-9776-3AF396BEC9F1@bitsofproof.com>
	<545BF0C2.3030201@bluematt.me>
	<CAJHLa0NTj6m4JpHx3+nWtYVV1Zpwf-FaxiyFX9DR821cQYVqsg@mail.gmail.com>
	<545BFAD6.1000504@riseup.net>
	<20141106232649.GD26859@savin.petertodd.org>
	<545C0617.7020300@riseup.net>
	<20141107000310.GA6532@savin.petertodd.org>
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2014 17:52:20 +0100
Message-ID: <CANEZrP2mnbr7zjQ5kOWCVLH79wgHgHDSLMpqkKhpD84QMcwuLA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
To: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0160b5f4e8ef6b050747a2a7
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>,
	Justus Ranvier <justusranvier@riseup.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] The difficulty of writing consensus
 critical code: the SIGHASH_SINGLE bug
Precedence: list

--089e0160b5f4e8ef6b050747a2a7
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

>
> > Who benefits from not fixing bugs in Bitcoin?
>
> We can bring up politics if you want.


No, please don't. That question was rhetorical, not an invitation for you
to try and convince bystanders that anyone who disagrees with you is a
shadowy Agent Of Centralisation or an idiot. You use that tactic way too
much: it's obnoxious and you need to stop it.

Hard forks vs soft forks are *purely* about whether you drag along old
nodes in a quasi-broken state. They do not reduce total work needed by the
community one iota. Non-miners who wish to reject a soft fork can easily
run a node that does so, if they wanted to - the voting mechanism still
boils down to "which side of the fork do I accept in my economic activity".
It's certainly garbage to claim that the reason to want to avoid soft forks
is being an Evil Centralised Foundation:  this is about a set of
engineering tradeoffs only.

--089e0160b5f4e8ef6b050747a2a7
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:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left=
-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;paddi=
ng-left:1ex"><span class=3D"">&gt; Who benefits from not fixing bugs in Bit=
coin?<br>
<br>
</span>We can bring up politics if you want.</blockquote><div><br></div><di=
v class=3D"gmail_extra">No, please don&#39;t. That question was rhetorical,=
 not an invitation for you to try and convince bystanders that anyone who d=
isagrees with you is a shadowy Agent Of Centralisation or an idiot. You use=
 that tactic way too much: it&#39;s obnoxious and you need to stop it.</div=
><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra">Hard forks=
 vs soft forks are=C2=A0<i>purely</i>=C2=A0about whether you drag along old=
 nodes in a quasi-broken state. They do not reduce total work needed by the=
 community one iota. Non-miners who wish to reject a soft fork can easily r=
un a node that does so, if they wanted to - the voting mechanism still boil=
s down to &quot;which side of the fork do I accept in my economic activity&=
quot;. It&#39;s certainly garbage to claim that the reason to want to avoid=
 soft forks is being an Evil Centralised Foundation: =C2=A0this is about a =
set of engineering tradeoffs only.</div></div></div></div>

--089e0160b5f4e8ef6b050747a2a7--