From: "Eric Lombrozo" <elombrozo@gmail.com>
To: "Gregory Maxwell" <gmaxwell@gmail.com>, "Rusty Russell"
	<rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 05:09:51 +0000
Message-Id: <em0a6ae99c-b1d5-450f-ab2e-ad085991b9ff@platinum>
In-Reply-To: <ema32ec38f-3384-48e2-9ab3-6064e4c73bde@platinum>
Reply-To: "Eric Lombrozo" <elombrozo@gmail.com>
User-Agent: eM_Client/6.0.23181.0
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>,
	Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Versionbits BIP (009) minor revision proposal.
Precedence: list


>While I would like to get some form of explicit acknowledgment from=20
>miners that a new rule is in effect, the truth of the matter is we=20
>still lack a means to determine whether or not miners are actually=20
>enforcing these rules...unless someone happens to mine a block that=20
>breaks the new rule. This is a bit frustrating...but that's just how it=
=20
>is.
>

I should add that hard forks do provide us with a means to determine=20
whether or not miners are enforcing the new rules...but generally=20
speaking they risk far greater disruption if anything fails to go as=20
planned. Between the risk of clients accepting an occasional invalid=20
"confirmation" or two and the risk of a total network partition, the=20
former seems far less serious. I believe the concerns regarding old=20
clients can be remedied to a very large extent by means of a good=20
awareness campaign.


- Eric