📅 Original date posted:2015-09-28
📝 Original message:I think three things need to happen:
1) Stop pretending that "everyone must agree to make consensus rule
changes." "Rough consensus" is what we've always gone with, and is good
enough.
2) Mr. Todd (or somebody) needs to write up a risk/benefit security
tradeoff analysis doo-hickey document and publish it. I'm reasonably
confident that the risks to SPV nodes can be mitigated (e.g. by deploying
mempool-only first, before the soft fork rolls out), but as somebody who
has only been moderately paying attention, BETTER COMMUNICATION is needed.
What should SPV wallet authors be doing right now, if anything? Once the
soft fork starts to roll out or activates, what do miners need to be aware
of? SPV wallet authors?
3) I agree CLTV is ready to roll out, that there is rough consensus a soft
fork is a reasonable way to do it, and that it should happen ASAP.
On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 6:48 AM, 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
>
>
--
--
Gavin Andresen
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150928/066eb127/attachment.html>;
Gavin Andresen [ARCHIVE] /
npub1s4…d44kw
2023-06-07 17:41:32
in reply to nevent1q…sqtr
Author Public Key
npub1s4lj77xuzcu7wy04afcr487f0r3za0f8n2775xrpkld2sv639mjqsd44kwPublished at
2023-06-07 17:41:32Event JSON
{
"id": "24615cdf750233f0b4dc57362613e38db862acbbfd20ec1667817588b4e2a904",
"pubkey": "857f2f78dc1639e711f5ea703a9fc978e22ebd279abdea1861b7daa833512ee4",
"created_at": 1686159692,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"f5bb1bf208994917ac3ec4154383520df2a8573df815c54d28bae4e41ef024c8",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"fd185b15004e496149f71b07e19055809807107697386ae1e68dd7040836926a",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"46986f86b97cc97829a031b03209644d134b939d0163375467f0b1363e0d875e"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-09-28\n📝 Original message:I think three things need to happen:\n\n1) Stop pretending that \"everyone must agree to make consensus rule\nchanges.\" \"Rough consensus\" is what we've always gone with, and is good\nenough.\n\n2) Mr. Todd (or somebody) needs to write up a risk/benefit security\ntradeoff analysis doo-hickey document and publish it. I'm reasonably\nconfident that the risks to SPV nodes can be mitigated (e.g. by deploying\nmempool-only first, before the soft fork rolls out), but as somebody who\nhas only been moderately paying attention, BETTER COMMUNICATION is needed.\nWhat should SPV wallet authors be doing right now, if anything? Once the\nsoft fork starts to roll out or activates, what do miners need to be aware\nof? SPV wallet authors?\n\n3) I agree CLTV is ready to roll out, that there is rough consensus a soft\nfork is a reasonable way to do it, and that it should happen ASAP.\n\nOn Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 6:48 AM, Mike Hearn via bitcoin-dev \u003c\nbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e There is *no* consensus on using a soft fork to deploy this feature. It\n\u003e will result in the same problems as all the other soft forks - SPV wallets\n\u003e will become less reliable during the rollout period. I am against that, as\n\u003e it's 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\n\u003e like 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-- \n--\nGavin Andresen\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150928/066eb127/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "751729311bd5d5026cf200acb32055f5d926eef0a09c97c14430b82d8429ecb45954ea869d89709bd0cb4898ace1a0b4e6b86f2bdd0d75e87ea58a8a8836eee1"
}