MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CADJgMzv+cKPY9wrAzbk5pgQJS0=R9KWu-+EuppM=nmXs8RHxYg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALqxMTFkgGx0FxMiZ77inOZSs_+TQ88Wpj-q-c12COkO9tP4gQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADJgMzv+cKPY9wrAzbk5pgQJS0=R9KWu-+EuppM=nmXs8RHxYg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2015 20:22:17 +0200
Message-ID: <CABm2gDrQ3DEDQLA0b6kTppxU+CL6rYNocymPeVo2eTmLnDUYLw@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
To: Btc Drak <btcdrak@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin XT Fork
Precedence: list

On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 7:32 PM, Btc Drak via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 5:53 PM, Adam Back via bitcoin-dev
> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>> ignored the warnings.  Many also warned that 75% was an optimally BAD
>> trigger ratio (and that in a hard fork it is not a miner vote really
>> as in soft-forks).  Gavin & Mike ignored that warning to.  I know they
>> heard those warnings because I told them 1:1 in person or via email
>> and had on going conversations.  Others did too.
>
> I would like to add for the record, I also warned Gavin of this in his
> PR to Bitcoin Core, and also suggested a timeout which if
> activation/enforcement did not occur within, hard fork deployment
> would be cancelled. His response was to delete these from the PR
> claiming thresholds were not relevant conversation in his PR and
> belonged elsewhere (even though they had already been discussed
> elsewhere).

I don't know the timeline for this, but maybe he was referring to
http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-July/009731.html
(where he is one of the few people that have participated).