Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C8878B0B for ; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 21:06:55 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from zinan.dashjr.org (zinan.dashjr.org [192.3.11.21]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6AF6DCD for ; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 21:06:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ishibashi.localnet (unknown [IPv6:2001:470:5:265:a45d:823b:2d27:961c]) (Authenticated sender: luke-jr) by zinan.dashjr.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BBED038ABED7; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 21:06:50 +0000 (UTC) X-Hashcash: 1:25:170328:alp.bitcoin@gmail.com::/tzaZ4E/P06xnswp:q1yZ X-Hashcash: 1:25:170328:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org::S8cW/wk=ThcY7eHQ:gE1N From: Luke Dashjr To: Alphonse Pace , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 21:06:49 +0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/4.9.16-gentoo; KDE/4.14.29; x86_64; ; ) References: <10740865.BWG7G26IGS@cherry> In-Reply-To: X-PGP-Key-Fingerprint: E463 A93F 5F31 17EE DE6C 7316 BD02 9424 21F4 889F X-PGP-Key-ID: BD02942421F4889F X-PGP-Keyserver: hkp://pgp.mit.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201703282106.49852.luke@dashjr.org> X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Hard fork proposal from last week's meeting X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 21:06:55 -0000 On Tuesday, March 28, 2017 8:53:30 PM Alphonse Pace via bitcoin-dev wrote: > His demand (not suggestion) allows it without any safeguards. > > >This patch must be in the immediate next release of Bitcoin Core. > > That is not a suggestion. I think it was probably a design requirement more than a demand. It makes sense: if we're aiming to have a long lead time for a possible hardfork, we want to get the lead time started ASAP. (It could perhaps have been communicated clearer, but let's not read hostility into things when unnecessary.) Meta-topic: Can we try a little harder to avoid sequences of multiple brief replies in a matter of minutes? Combine them to a single reply. Luke