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
|
Return-Path: <jl2012@xbt.hk>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C5D96F0F
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 10 Feb 2016 04:25:40 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from s47.web-hosting.com (s47.web-hosting.com [199.188.200.16])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 62CDE17F
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 10 Feb 2016 04:25:40 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from 119246245241.ctinets.com ([119.246.245.241]:60604 helo=2012R2)
by server47.web-hosting.com with esmtpsa
(TLSv1.2:DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.86)
(envelope-from <jl2012@xbt.hk>)
id 1aTMLS-001YFy-4H; Tue, 09 Feb 2016 23:25:38 -0500
From: <jl2012@xbt.hk>
To: "'Matt Corallo'" <lf-lists@mattcorallo.com>,
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
References: <239b01d16344$717712d0$54653870$@xbt.hk>
<56BA64F3.2060900@mattcorallo.com>
In-Reply-To: <56BA64F3.2060900@mattcorallo.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2016 12:26:03 +0800
Message-ID: <23ab01d163bb$28e140a0$7aa3c1e0$@xbt.hk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AQHGHiFSfOL5uUJrxN+FpKFqqUC6GQE+7KHLnzFAe8A=
Content-Language: en-hk
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse,
please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - server47.web-hosting.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - xbt.hk
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: server47.web-hosting.com: authenticated_id:
jl2012@xbt.hk
X-Authenticated-Sender: server47.web-hosting.com: jl2012@xbt.hk
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
X-From-Rewrite: unmodified, already matched
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE
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] A roadmap to a better header format and bigger
block size
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, 10 Feb 2016 04:25:40 -0000
I am actually suggesting 1 hardfork, not 2. However, different rules are
activated at different time to enhance safety and reduce disruption. The
advantage is people are required to upgrade once, not twice. Any clients
designed for stage 2 should also be ready for stage 3.
-----Original Message-----
From: Matt Corallo [mailto:lf-lists@mattcorallo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, 10 February, 2016 06:15
To: jl2012@xbt.hk; bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] A roadmap to a better header format and bigger
block size
As for your stages idea, I generally like the idea (and mentioned it may be
a good idea in my proposal), but am worried about scheduling two hard-forks
at once....Lets do our first hard-fork first with the things we think we
will need anytime in the visible future that we have reasonable designs for
now, and talk about a second one after we've seen what did/didnt blow up
with the first one.
Anyway, this generally seems reasonable - it looks like most of this matches
up with what I said more specifically in my mail yesterday, with the
addition of timewarp fixes, which we should probably add, and Luke's header
changes, which I need to spend some more time thinking about.
Matt
|
