📅 Original date posted:2015-06-27
📝 Original message:Jorge,
> Provided they're also uncontroversial, they don't need to be that
> different (in terms of deployment) from softforks. Since they risks
> are bigger you just need to give more time for users and alternative
> software to upgrade.
Sure, most extreme: if secp256k1 or SHA256 starts to show chinks in its armor, or practical quantum computing is getting powerful enough to factor discrete logarithms of those sizes, I don't doubt everyone would go along with a proposal to add new crypto algos.
I do expect there are other possible hardforks that are uncontroversial. Either
- minor issues (maybe solving the time-warp issue with mining) issues planned on the long term
- features that are not politically loaded, on the long term
- major emergencies (anything that is clearly an 'exploit' with regard to coin holders or miners)
Not sure though. The only way to find out is to propose them and see. Maybe wait a bit until things have cooled down...
Note that anything non-critical and non-controversial can be planned and time-locked, say, 5 years ahead, obliviating the need for anyone to quickly upgrade their client.
Wladimir
Wladimir J. van der Laan [ARCHIVE] /
npub1ts…rfl5y
2023-06-07 15:40:43
in reply to nevent1q…7eur
Author Public Key
npub1ts9hljj3l4yrpdxelpqdup3l46lw40fmkhw3rr0feh6s5ml247vqerfl5yPublished at
2023-06-07 15:40:43Event JSON
{
"id": "44e6704c051408aef3f6e3d0d8ce61d685859d697b1168eff9a45d1d069c2155",
"pubkey": "5c0b7fca51fd4830b4d9f840de063faebeeabd3bb5dd118de9cdf50a6feaaf98",
"created_at": 1686152443,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"6b97b8772e4c3c0f5eb751746063b4217197a3eb7cab2fa3b16264082ad573c4",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"ecdc26ee951858adedbd0cb813a6cfff47ed9a0ac54f7808e458f2f145bde96a",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"498a711971f8a0194289aee037a4c481a99e731b5151724064973cc0e0b27c84"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-06-27\n📝 Original message:Jorge,\n\n\u003e Provided they're also uncontroversial, they don't need to be that\n\u003e different (in terms of deployment) from softforks. Since they risks\n\u003e are bigger you just need to give more time for users and alternative\n\u003e software to upgrade.\n\nSure, most extreme: if secp256k1 or SHA256 starts to show chinks in its armor, or practical quantum computing is getting powerful enough to factor discrete logarithms of those sizes, I don't doubt everyone would go along with a proposal to add new crypto algos.\n\nI do expect there are other possible hardforks that are uncontroversial. Either\n\n- minor issues (maybe solving the time-warp issue with mining) issues planned on the long term\n- features that are not politically loaded, on the long term\n- major emergencies (anything that is clearly an 'exploit' with regard to coin holders or miners)\n\nNot sure though. The only way to find out is to propose them and see. Maybe wait a bit until things have cooled down...\n\nNote that anything non-critical and non-controversial can be planned and time-locked, say, 5 years ahead, obliviating the need for anyone to quickly upgrade their client.\n\nWladimir",
"sig": "014a61368c7390af64e31f679fd7228078a93d9486b8527b8a959058d2627b25afeba7e31d0ef7ba5f94a9130445759a7d145cb576ada52d1fe576202eb88069"
}