Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 65A3F1254 for ; Mon, 4 Jan 2016 21:53:41 +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 1856A13E for ; Mon, 4 Jan 2016 21:53:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ishibashi.localnet (unknown [IPv6:2001:470:5:265:61b6:56a6:b03d:28d6]) (Authenticated sender: luke-jr) by zinan.dashjr.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9B75938A924B; Mon, 4 Jan 2016 21:53:38 +0000 (UTC) From: Luke Dashjr To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org, joe2015@openmailbox.org Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2016 21:53:36 +0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/4.1.13-gentoo; KDE/4.14.8; x86_64; ; ) References: <1bf64a5b514d57ca37744ae5f5238149@openmailbox.org> In-Reply-To: <1bf64a5b514d57ca37744ae5f5238149@openmailbox.org> 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-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201601042153.37771.luke@dashjr.org> X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_SBL, RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=no version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org 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, 04 Jan 2016 21:53:41 -0000 On Sunday, December 20, 2015 10:56:33 AM joe2015--- via bitcoin-dev wrote: > "generalized" softfork. FWIW, this is something I've been planning to proposed (in a nicer form) for a while, tentatively called a "soft hardfork" (or less-seriously a "softserve hardfork"). The big piece missing that I've been holding off on publishing it as a BIP until complete, is a planned-out defensive reaction for a community which wishes to reject the hardfork. I guess I should probably prioritise this a bit more now... Luke