Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BA12FE5B for ; Mon, 21 Dec 2015 03:39:53 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-ig0-f174.google.com (mail-ig0-f174.google.com [209.85.213.174]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6E0B6E0 for ; Mon, 21 Dec 2015 03:39:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ig0-f174.google.com with SMTP id mv3so23867797igc.0 for ; Sun, 20 Dec 2015 19:39:53 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=lr3XX61i+98jUWu+3AKsGJ4HXCe4rNEkixluAtpgrTw=; b=0wchKdx0Nt6k1iNdQqqwpusefYIi1+xNDL0ow8mmE/YcqlzjF3Nyz2cfH91a1Omp5h TaXzxrn82H1YWJckC6BlyWBTdvrUb19Gqa3aRYT2LxzLXMkR4rAJKwTI1Nr6xZbU4/U1 86JLIhVlMQFdGI+aWoyYPG4Yi8NfBEFWzhe6vj6nor4pZY7ofzq6vLmI/PuNhFNZPRcO MCRDQbsE3vGfzrXWT/RXh79S+GB4U9cOf2EdqhmnxoPpQBNP6IRpudldxJsFtlT+zWnu JynYyA+Z/YsbEkZtTfUvWzaV6sZyC3HHQkJxps4tEpkgGSVryCu0axjLS3u4zcE/pooE ESwA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.50.20.36 with SMTP id k4mr16106748ige.87.1450669192697; Sun, 20 Dec 2015 19:39:52 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.79.8.198 with HTTP; Sun, 20 Dec 2015 19:39:52 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2015 22:39:52 -0500 Message-ID: From: Jeff Garzik To: joe2015@openmailbox.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bd76d94eaf6f90527603dc7 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Cc: Bitcoin development mailing list Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Increasing the blocksize as a (generalized) softfork. X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2015 03:39:53 -0000 --047d7bd76d94eaf6f90527603dc7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Sun, Dec 20, 2015 at 12:21 PM, joe2015--- via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > Remember this is proposed as an alternative to hardforks, which is also a > "nuclear option". Hardforks carry significant risks such as permanently > splitting Bitcoin into two chains if global consensus is never reached. A > (generalized) softfork avoids this problem. Current hard fork implementations include / will include miner lock-in, just like any soft fork. They will not activate if global consensus is not reached. --047d7bd76d94eaf6f90527603dc7 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Sun, Dec 20, 2015 at 12:21 PM, joe2015--- via bitcoin-d= ev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
Remember this is proposed as an alternative to hardf= orks, which is also a "nuclear option".=C2=A0 Hardforks carry sig= nificant risks such as permanently splitting Bitcoin into two chains if glo= bal consensus is never reached.=C2=A0 A (generalized) softfork avoids this = problem.

Current hard fork implementations = include / will include miner lock-in, just like any soft fork.=C2=A0 They w= ill not activate if global consensus is not reached.




--047d7bd76d94eaf6f90527603dc7--