Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1XboGz-00058Y-7E for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 08 Oct 2014 10:15:09 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.218.48 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.218.48; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com; helo=mail-oi0-f48.google.com; Received: from mail-oi0-f48.google.com ([209.85.218.48]) by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1XboGy-0006gx-8F for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 08 Oct 2014 10:15:09 +0000 Received: by mail-oi0-f48.google.com with SMTP id g201so6911494oib.21 for ; Wed, 08 Oct 2014 03:15:02 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.60.51.71 with SMTP id i7mr11037173oeo.41.1412763302653; Wed, 08 Oct 2014 03:15:02 -0700 (PDT) Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com Received: by 10.76.86.105 with HTTP; Wed, 8 Oct 2014 03:15:02 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <5434B873.1060406@thinlink.com> References: <20141001130826.GM28710@savin.petertodd.org> <1987325.zKPNeYyO8K@crushinator> <201410031750.27323.luke@dashjr.org> <20141004003850.GA23202@muck> <5434B873.1060406@thinlink.com> Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2014 12:15:02 +0200 X-Google-Sender-Auth: LttGB87-BahrDDBD-M9rrom9ErE Message-ID: From: Mike Hearn To: Tom Harding Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c3048ace76350504e6966b X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/) 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 (mh.in.england[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message 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: 1XboGy-0006gx-8F Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] [BIP draft] CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY - Prevent a txout from being spent until an expiration time 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: Wed, 08 Oct 2014 10:15:09 -0000 --001a11c3048ace76350504e6966b Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > Opinion: if a soft work works, it should be preferred, if for no other > reason than once a hard-fork is planned, the discussion begins about > what else to throw in. To minimize the frequency of hard-forks, the > time for that is when the change being considered actually requires one. I'm not sure why it'd be any different. Soft forks are just as disruptive - everyone who needs a correct node has to upgrade on time. Given that, I guess there will be a desire to roll out several changes at once too, regardless of what happens to older nodes. --001a11c3048ace76350504e6966b Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Opinion: if a soft work works, it should be pref= erred, if for no other
reason than once a hard-fork is planned, the discussion begins about
what else to throw in.=C2=A0 To minimize the frequency of hard-forks, the time for that is when the change being considered actually requires one.

I'm not sure why it'd be any differen= t. Soft forks are just as disruptive - everyone who needs a correct node ha= s to upgrade on time. Given that, I guess there will be a desire to roll ou= t several changes at once too, regardless of what happens to older nodes.
--001a11c3048ace76350504e6966b--