š
Original date posted:2015-12-30
š Original message: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 interesting, 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 softforks this way sounds terrifying.
>
> <snip>
>
> > It might be possible to make that a bit simpler with recursion, or by doing subsequent generalized softforks in a way that doesn't have multi-levels-deep block-within-a-block-within-a-block stuff. Still: ugh.
>
> Your fear is misplaced: it's trivial to avoid recursion with a bit of
> planning.
>
> 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.
--
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
00000000000000000831fc2554d9370aeba2701fff09980123d24a615eee7416
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 650 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20151230/a075a180/attachment-0001.sig>;
Peter Todd [ARCHIVE] /
npub1m2ā¦a2np2
2023-06-07 17:47:25
in reply to nevent1qā¦j65a
Author Public Key
npub1m230cem2yh3mtdzkg32qhj73uytgkyg5ylxsu083n3tpjnajxx4qqa2np2Seen on
wss://relay.noswhere.comPublished at
2023-06-07 17:47:25Event JSON
{
"id": "d3981c2149fd95e25fa27c28b580cc8bb3121c109d78f1225cff0b8b040fd28d",
"pubkey": "daa2fc676a25e3b5b45644540bcbd1e1168b111427cd0e3cf19c56194fb231aa",
"created_at": 1686160045,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"410a15ecaf9eb209e9831774c35dbf549a77975bb49e6a60c2dbf869774cfd1f",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"abb035272047a87fc41298c26475e655b20c556396fcff7b0bad03b59238ee33",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"daa2fc676a25e3b5b45644540bcbd1e1168b111427cd0e3cf19c56194fb231aa"
]
],
"content": "š
Original date posted:2015-12-30\nš Original message:On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 06:19:55AM -0800, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 05:29:05AM -0800, Jonathan Toomim via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e \u003e As a first impression, I think this proposal is intellectually interesting, 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 softforks this way sounds terrifying.\n\u003e \n\u003e \u003csnip\u003e\n\u003e \n\u003e \u003e It might be possible to make that a bit simpler with recursion, or by doing subsequent generalized softforks in a way that doesn't have multi-levels-deep block-within-a-block-within-a-block stuff. Still: ugh.\n\u003e \n\u003e Your fear is misplaced: it's trivial to avoid recursion with a bit of\n\u003e planning.\n\u003e \n\u003e For instance, if Bitcoin was redesigned to incorporate the forced fork\n\nActually, a better name is probably \"forced soft-fork\", making this\nclear we're using the soft-fork mechanism to force everyone to upgrade.\n\n-- \n'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org\n00000000000000000831fc2554d9370aeba2701fff09980123d24a615eee7416\n-------------- next part --------------\nA non-text attachment was scrubbed...\nName: signature.asc\nType: application/pgp-signature\nSize: 650 bytes\nDesc: Digital signature\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20151230/a075a180/attachment-0001.sig\u003e",
"sig": "d3d0dce7827bc54274e2dc781247f889af095574f00e1e70b2486850f4544f1204589162190660c5f202269c148439ddca3371dfd710204d5e9c086d9f77e61f"
}