📅 Original date posted:2015-10-01
📝 Original message:2015-10-01 12:15 GMT+02:00 Wladimir J. van der Laan <laanwj at gmail.com>:
> 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.
>
As I understand it, right now the bitcoin protocol is defined by the
bitcoin core implementation. Or is there anything else to point to? So I'd
say my point still stands.
Other implementations copy what bitcoin core does.
> > Then you could start using the version as a signaling mechanism.
>
> We certainly could, it is a decision to not to.
>
Simply because of the "1.0.0" issue or for other reasons as well?
> 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
> > >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20151001/bb50904f/attachment.html>;
Marcel Jamin [ARCHIVE] /
npub14j…vk3rk
2023-06-07 17:42:14
in reply to nevent1q…sas5
Author Public Key
npub14jegtpz2t9nfnefqqr0q4te9353e4k4x5y2528qf235ruluzsaes8vk3rkPublished at
2023-06-07 17:42:14Event JSON
{
"id": "cb430a56c5af3f6a153cd8ecb6a9d56fe5f865eb4616eb2fe765a43764ce6717",
"pubkey": "acb285844a596699e52000de0aaf258d239adaa6a115451c0954683e7f828773",
"created_at": 1686159734,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"c1ccd66a2a8bcce59580c8b7ef502217a6f8125f060a0f809e6869b5ea572af2",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"a7040154f3b582404a1206848da9349fde26dc0fd3e42db0d99233f4a65466aa",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"5c0b7fca51fd4830b4d9f840de063faebeeabd3bb5dd118de9cdf50a6feaaf98"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-10-01\n📝 Original message:2015-10-01 12:15 GMT+02:00 Wladimir J. van der Laan \u003claanwj at gmail.com\u003e:\n\n\u003e On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 12:10:45PM +0200, Marcel Jamin wrote:\n\u003e \u003e I think the question has already been answered for you by the companies\n\u003e \u003e that build on top of it, the investments being made and the $3.5 billion\n\u003e \u003e market cap. The 1.0.0 tag is probably long overdue.\n\u003e\n\u003e May I remind you that by far, most of that investment is not in the\n\u003e Bitcoin Core software.\n\u003e\n\nAs I understand it, right now the bitcoin protocol is defined by the\nbitcoin core implementation. Or is there anything else to point to? So I'd\nsay my point still stands.\n\nOther implementations copy what bitcoin core does.\n\n\n\u003e \u003e Then you could start using the version as a signaling mechanism.\n\u003e\n\u003e We certainly could, it is a decision to not to.\n\u003e\n\nSimply because of the \"1.0.0\" issue or for other reasons as well?\n\n\n\n\u003e 2015-10-01 11:56 GMT+02:00 Wladimir J. van der Laan \u003claanwj at gmail.com\u003e:\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e \u003e On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 11:41:25AM +0200, Marcel Jamin wrote:\n\u003e \u003e \u003e \u003e I guess the question then becomes why bitcoin still is \u003c1.0.0\n\u003e \u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e \u003e I'll interpret the question as \"why is the Bitcoin Core software still\n\u003e \u003e \u003e \u003c1.0.0\". Bitcoin the currency doesn't have a version, the\n\u003e block/transaction\n\u003e \u003e \u003e versions are at v3/v1 respectively, and the highest network protocol\n\u003e \u003e \u003e version is 70011.\n\u003e \u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e \u003e Mostly because we don't use the numbers as a signaling mechanism. They\n\u003e \u003e \u003e just count up, every half year.\n\u003e \u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e \u003e Otherwise, one'd have to ask hard questions like 'is the software\n\u003e mature\n\u003e \u003e \u003e enough to be called 1.0.0', which would lead to long arguments, all of\n\u003e \u003e \u003e which would eventually lead to nothing more than potentially\n\u003e increasing a\n\u003e \u003e \u003e number. We're horribly stressed-out as is.\n\u003e \u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e \u003e Wladimir\n\u003e \u003e \u003e\n\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20151001/bb50904f/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "8ed5ef8241338acfabcbe76120b96d23ea57b85365a4cd4a119fb05461079a16bfbb0d8ae2d79c7ee65453d1d48878eb12767f01e09500f05eddf67d8f179d9e"
}