📅 Original date posted:2015-12-29
📝 Original message:What if someone complains? We can't even tell whether a complaint is
legit or just trolling. That's why I think we need some general
consensus rules which is not written in code, but as a social contract.
Breaking those rules would be considered as a hardfork and is allowed
only in exceptional situation.
Jonathan Toomim via bitcoin-dev 於 2015-12-29 07:42 寫到:
> That sounds like a rather unlikely scenario. Unless you have a
> specific reason to suspect that might be the case, I think we don't
> need to worry about it too much. If we announce the intention to
> perform such a soft fork a couple of months before the soft fork
> becomes active, and if nobody complains about it destroying their
> secret stash, then I think that's fair enough and we could proceed.
>
> On Dec 28, 2015, at 11:47 PM, jl2012 via bitcoin-dev
> <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>> Do we need to consider that someone may have a timelocked big tx, with
>> private key lost?
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
jl2012 [ARCHIVE] /
npub14v…jyksm
2023-06-07 17:47:22
in reply to nevent1q…tyuu
Author Public Key
npub14vwgt02663pkxx54kg5t693shaavmvnldhsp49sve7asw7p36lkqljyksmPublished at
2023-06-07 17:47:22Event JSON
{
"id": "3740efa9f78effc2f29a4d0a8ec4db46bd88f06a5082d62cac58aa98925232e4",
"pubkey": "ab1c85bd5ad443631a95b228bd1630bf7acdb27f6de01a960ccfbb077831d7ec",
"created_at": 1686160042,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"0600edb122b23d28de1adba7ca47e2347d6be937da11235e57408ba908190104",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"6b32000177baa4b9d161b16c88341844500e4c0d7373fa2ffdca86cd54883438",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"0ff56c09ef879c89ea04bfa2d5f5e0d96000ed6eaf5ac38e7b538a9d92767569"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-12-29\n📝 Original message:What if someone complains? We can't even tell whether a complaint is \nlegit or just trolling. That's why I think we need some general \nconsensus rules which is not written in code, but as a social contract. \nBreaking those rules would be considered as a hardfork and is allowed \nonly in exceptional situation.\n\nJonathan Toomim via bitcoin-dev 於 2015-12-29 07:42 寫到:\n\u003e That sounds like a rather unlikely scenario. Unless you have a\n\u003e specific reason to suspect that might be the case, I think we don't\n\u003e need to worry about it too much. If we announce the intention to\n\u003e perform such a soft fork a couple of months before the soft fork\n\u003e becomes active, and if nobody complains about it destroying their\n\u003e secret stash, then I think that's fair enough and we could proceed.\n\u003e \n\u003e On Dec 28, 2015, at 11:47 PM, jl2012 via bitcoin-dev\n\u003e \u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \n\u003e\u003e Do we need to consider that someone may have a timelocked big tx, with \n\u003e\u003e private key lost?\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",
"sig": "a077c4c2e91818a1336166834a58827c9ac11b11a62a4bef187bb1c9c466079d0bd1717aac1eccdb4b3cae50ddb0bd0a44ec07eca29083dd60b47cb380e3f2b2"
}