📅 Original date posted:2015-10-01
📝 Original message:Or, you know, enter some discussions on what exactly are the issues that SPV
clients face during soft forks and see if anything can be done (on all
sides) to mitigate the risks.
Crazy stuff, I know Š ;-)
From: NotMike Hearn via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Reply-To: NotMike Hearn <not.mike.hearn at gmail.com>
Date: Friday, 2 October 2015 9:57 am
To: <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Let's deploy BIP65 CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY!
On 28 September 2015 at 06:48, Mike Hearn via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> There is no consensus on using a soft fork to deploy this feature. It will
> result in the same problems as all the other soft forks - SPV wallets will
> become less reliable during the rollout period. I am against that, as it's
> entirely avoidable.
>
> Make it a hard fork and my objection will be dropped.
>
> Until then, as there is no consensus, you need to do one of two things:
>
> 1) Drop the "everyone must agree to make changes" idea that people here like
> to peddle, and do it loudly, so everyone in the community is correctly
> informed
>
> 2) Do nothing
>
>
I agree with Mike Hearn that there is no consensus on using a soft fork to
deploy this feature. Either everyone agrees that we should all agree on
consensus or else there is arbitrary disagreement. You cannot have it both
ways.
It is very important that we reach consensus on consensus or, if you will,
meta0consensus. I think we should Do nothing as that is clearly the choice
that we have taken re: blocksize. If we use one set of rules for that
decision we should use the same set of rules for all decisions and there is
no middle ground.
Thank you.
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
_______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20151002/f95134ba/attachment-0001.html>;
GC [ARCHIVE] /
npub1ff…2qp3d
2023-06-07 17:41:57
in reply to nevent1q…7hdc
Author Public Key
npub1ffc8cszk5wq34nvq78qm7npmmc8wsxg4538k7sy604shwmmrsjgsk2qp3dPublished at
2023-06-07 17:41:57Event JSON
{
"id": "dab279d6b2fd18ddc075a7733e3baa7f1987e1fb0127e186c08fa13f7c134d6d",
"pubkey": "4a707c4056a3811acd80f1c1bf4c3bde0ee81915a44f6f409a7d61776f638491",
"created_at": 1686159717,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"7ff2050ebdfe33f92ad46edcffb5d61f26a94f61437237faeeaedfedde460e1c",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"e3b10547ea8afd8d95d6e3211181398c71e603a5e57a6d9fb613724691299a9c",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"b586a7b709efbaaf7003fd864038dd9a173460b3d98b86fc240c48c047d03ba0"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-10-01\n📝 Original message:Or, you know, enter some discussions on what exactly are the issues that SPV\nclients face during soft forks and see if anything can be done (on all\nsides) to mitigate the risks.\n\nCrazy stuff, I know Š ;-)\n\nFrom: NotMike Hearn via bitcoin-dev \u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e\nReply-To: NotMike Hearn \u003cnot.mike.hearn at gmail.com\u003e\nDate: Friday, 2 October 2015 9:57 am\nTo: \u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e\nSubject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Let's deploy BIP65 CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY!\n\nOn 28 September 2015 at 06:48, Mike Hearn via bitcoin-dev\n\u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e There is no consensus on using a soft fork to deploy this feature. It will\n\u003e result in the same problems as all the other soft forks - SPV wallets will\n\u003e become less reliable during the rollout period. I am against that, as it's\n\u003e entirely avoidable.\n\u003e\n\u003e Make it a hard fork and my objection will be dropped.\n\u003e\n\u003e Until then, as there is no consensus, you need to do one of two things:\n\u003e\n\u003e 1) Drop the \"everyone must agree to make changes\" idea that people here like\n\u003e to peddle, and do it loudly, so everyone in the community is correctly\n\u003e informed\n\u003e\n\u003e 2) Do nothing\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\nI agree with Mike Hearn that there is no consensus on using a soft fork to\ndeploy this feature. Either everyone agrees that we should all agree on\nconsensus or else there is arbitrary disagreement. You cannot have it both\nways.\n\nIt is very important that we reach consensus on consensus or, if you will,\nmeta0consensus. I think we should Do nothing as that is clearly the choice\nthat we have taken re: blocksize. If we use one set of rules for that\ndecision we should use the same set of rules for all decisions and there is\nno middle ground.\n\nThank you.\n\n\u003e\n\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e\n\n_______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list\nbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\nhttps://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20151002/f95134ba/attachment-0001.html\u003e",
"sig": "992bcc180994bf4adfb9fef013782c45d4d3cbeaa3c8a70039cc1b03117168467bf99f455fd3fc8be838dbb406a4bb64e1e1a92abdfeb45b9324262dadaee29e"
}