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
|
Return-Path: <jgarzik@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BA12FE5B
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
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 <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 21 Dec 2015 03:39:53 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-ig0-f174.google.com with SMTP id mv3so23867797igc.0
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
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: <dcf6dfa0f7fdcf96e9970e815e4c9b78@openmailbox.org>
References: <dcf6dfa0f7fdcf96e9970e815e4c9b78@openmailbox.org>
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2015 22:39:52 -0500
Message-ID: <CADm_WcYXU6VXG034j=mD8zkmqNLB96sjvBc6qo8Sx2NepHJk8A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@gmail.com>
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 <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.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 <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: 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
<div dir=3D"ltr">On Sun, Dec 20, 2015 at 12:21 PM, joe2015--- via bitcoin-d=
ev <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundatio=
n.org" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>></spa=
n> wrote:<br><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><blockqu=
ote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc s=
olid;padding-left:1ex">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.</blockquote><div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><d=
iv><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div></div></div>
--047d7bd76d94eaf6f90527603dc7--
|
