📅 Original date posted:2015-10-01
📝 Original message:On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 12:10:45PM +0200, Marcel Jamin wrote:
> I think the question has already been answered for you by the companies
> that build on top of it, the investments being made and the $3.5 billion
> market cap. The 1.0.0 tag is probably long overdue.
May I remind you that by far, most of that investment is not in the Bitcoin Core software.
It is made to things building on top of the network/protocol, under the assumption that nothing really stupid will happen and the network will not go down etc.
This implies a level of trust in the node software to maintain consensus, but doesn't necessarily mean that all rough corners have been dealt with regarding implementation.
(but this is exactly the kind of argument I'm trying to avoid getting pulled into)
> Then you could start using the version as a signaling mechanism.
We certainly could, it is a decision to not to.
> Yeah, probably not a very important topic right now.
Exactly.
Wladimir
>
>
>
> 2015-10-01 11:56 GMT+02:00 Wladimir J. van der Laan <laanwj at gmail.com>:
>
> > On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 11:41:25AM +0200, Marcel Jamin wrote:
> > > I guess the question then becomes why bitcoin still is <1.0.0
> >
> > I'll interpret the question as "why is the Bitcoin Core software still
> > <1.0.0". Bitcoin the currency doesn't have a version, the block/transaction
> > versions are at v3/v1 respectively, and the highest network protocol
> > version is 70011.
> >
> > Mostly because we don't use the numbers as a signaling mechanism. They
> > just count up, every half year.
> >
> > Otherwise, one'd have to ask hard questions like 'is the software mature
> > enough to be called 1.0.0', which would lead to long arguments, all of
> > which would eventually lead to nothing more than potentially increasing a
> > number. We're horribly stressed-out as is.
> >
> > Wladimir
> >
Wladimir J. van der Laan [ARCHIVE] /
npub1ts…rfl5y
2023-06-07 17:42:14
in reply to nevent1q…dtr6
Author Public Key
npub1ts9hljj3l4yrpdxelpqdup3l46lw40fmkhw3rr0feh6s5ml247vqerfl5yPublished at
2023-06-07 17:42:14Event JSON
{
"id": "a7040154f3b582404a1206848da9349fde26dc0fd3e42db0d99233f4a65466aa",
"pubkey": "5c0b7fca51fd4830b4d9f840de063faebeeabd3bb5dd118de9cdf50a6feaaf98",
"created_at": 1686159734,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"c1ccd66a2a8bcce59580c8b7ef502217a6f8125f060a0f809e6869b5ea572af2",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"63519681ad5df75b4911b3a0292440945a64766515ce674744333b5b915b3ed5",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"acb285844a596699e52000de0aaf258d239adaa6a115451c0954683e7f828773"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-10-01\n📝 Original message:On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 12:10:45PM +0200, Marcel Jamin wrote:\n\u003e I think the question has already been answered for you by the companies\n\u003e that build on top of it, the investments being made and the $3.5 billion\n\u003e market cap. The 1.0.0 tag is probably long overdue.\n\nMay I remind you that by far, most of that investment is not in the Bitcoin Core software.\n\nIt is made to things building on top of the network/protocol, under the assumption that nothing really stupid will happen and the network will not go down etc.\n\nThis implies a level of trust in the node software to maintain consensus, but doesn't necessarily mean that all rough corners have been dealt with regarding implementation.\n\n(but this is exactly the kind of argument I'm trying to avoid getting pulled into)\n\n\u003e Then you could start using the version as a signaling mechanism.\n\nWe certainly could, it is a decision to not to.\n\n\u003e Yeah, probably not a very important topic right now.\n\nExactly.\n\nWladimir\n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e 2015-10-01 11:56 GMT+02:00 Wladimir J. van der Laan \u003claanwj at gmail.com\u003e:\n\u003e \n\u003e \u003e On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 11:41:25AM +0200, Marcel Jamin wrote:\n\u003e \u003e \u003e I guess the question then becomes why bitcoin still is \u003c1.0.0\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e I'll interpret the question as \"why is the Bitcoin Core software still\n\u003e \u003e \u003c1.0.0\". Bitcoin the currency doesn't have a version, the block/transaction\n\u003e \u003e versions are at v3/v1 respectively, and the highest network protocol\n\u003e \u003e version is 70011.\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e Mostly because we don't use the numbers as a signaling mechanism. They\n\u003e \u003e just count up, every half year.\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e Otherwise, one'd have to ask hard questions like 'is the software mature\n\u003e \u003e enough to be called 1.0.0', which would lead to long arguments, all of\n\u003e \u003e which would eventually lead to nothing more than potentially increasing a\n\u003e \u003e number. We're horribly stressed-out as is.\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e Wladimir\n\u003e \u003e",
"sig": "86369a813b1a422cd9e826bd67ff32e5647c5ee89256822eb041acea3add979749b15688688588d8eae5ae9b89958ac4b5b1ef89049ae765ecb93c9a8d46696f"
}