1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
|
Return-Path: <pete@petertodd.org>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 468E3105C
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 30 Dec 2015 14:31:54 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from outmail148108.authsmtp.net (outmail148108.authsmtp.net
[62.13.148.108])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9F0513E
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 30 Dec 2015 14:31:52 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-c247.authsmtp.com (mail-c247.authsmtp.com [62.13.128.247])
by punt21.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id tBUEVpjL079024;
Wed, 30 Dec 2015 14:31:51 GMT
Received: from muck ([24.114.27.145]) (authenticated bits=128)
by mail.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id tBUEVfNd006091
(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO);
Wed, 30 Dec 2015 14:31:47 GMT
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2015 06:31:37 -0800
From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
To: Jonathan Toomim <j@toom.im>, bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Message-ID: <20151230143137.GB19507@muck>
References: <6fc10e581a81abb76be5cd49275ebf48@openmailbox.org>
<8E12B367-1A55-435F-9244-101C09094BDA@toom.im>
<20151230141955.GA15588@muck>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="WYTEVAkct0FjGQmd"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20151230141955.GA15588@muck>
X-Server-Quench: 0fac1008-af02-11e5-bcde-0015176ca198
X-AuthReport-Spam: If SPAM / abuse - report it at:
http://www.authsmtp.com/abuse
X-AuthRoute: OCd2Yg0TA1ZNQRgX IjsJECJaVQIpKltL GxAVKBZePFsRUQkR
aAdMdQIUHFAXAgsB AmMbWlBeU1x7XWo7 aQ5PbARZfEhJQQRu
VVdMSlVNFUssc3l0 YEhgBhlycQVPeTB1 Z0RiEHANDRd7dUZ1
Xx8CFW8bZGY1bX1N AxQNagNUcQZLeRkW O1F2XD1vNG8XDSg5
AwQ0PjZ0MThBHWx8 REkMKEoWTEMGGCI1 WxEFG30oEwUvZh1q
d0ZuI0VUFQ4KNUsu P1w7WhRw
X-Authentic-SMTP: 61633532353630.1038:706
X-AuthFastPath: 0 (Was 255)
X-AuthSMTP-Origin: 24.114.27.145/587
X-AuthVirus-Status: No virus detected - but ensure you scan with your own
anti-virus system.
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,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
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] An implementation of BIP102 as a softfork.
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2015 14:31:54 -0000
--WYTEVAkct0FjGQmd
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 06:19:55AM -0800, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 05:29:05AM -0800, Jonathan Toomim via bitcoin-dev=
wrote:
> > As a first impression, I think this proposal is intellectually interest=
ing, but crufty and hackish and should never actually be deployed. Writing =
code for Bitcoin in a future in which we have deployed a few generalized so=
ftforks this way sounds terrifying.
>=20
> <snip>
>=20
> > It might be possible to make that a bit simpler with recursion, or by d=
oing subsequent generalized softforks in a way that doesn't have multi-leve=
ls-deep block-within-a-block-within-a-block stuff. Still: ugh.
>=20
> Your fear is misplaced: it's trivial to avoid recursion with a bit of
> planning.
>=20
> For instance, if Bitcoin was redesigned to incorporate the forced fork
Actually, a better name is probably "forced soft-fork", making this
clear we're using the soft-fork mechanism to force everyone to upgrade.
--=20
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
00000000000000000831fc2554d9370aeba2701fff09980123d24a615eee7416
--WYTEVAkct0FjGQmd
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----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==
=MoHU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--WYTEVAkct0FjGQmd--
|
