From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6B2EE17A3 for ; Mon, 28 Sep 2015 11:04:44 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-pa0-f45.google.com (mail-pa0-f45.google.com [209.85.220.45]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EC7937D for ; Mon, 28 Sep 2015 11:04:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: by pablk4 with SMTP id lk4so75051843pab.3 for ; Mon, 28 Sep 2015 04:04:43 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=user-agent:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:subject:from:date:to:cc:message-id; bh=7//MPPZvIut6WiUvDbfgueIxgGE2lp9/GRLbbInovE8=; b=q71O5GUPbEralBbvK/UlDt1+72M2/OgJLnVOhNnEEX0RC2qq6ZzaO7/QsfKmUL9PQC 4QGAk82kuJRlQYdqrSHwZwVpC6nDxSngcK8mCalKfgmJcF5rWvwkvl/JU54hN32xd0Oj hvkA0vOSjLh/Je2cUlrnw4UU4puP6KyIfIhADnmozMelIeKInu+1nz/tRfMZ5QXy8q86 tcv2DUdgFploX2BbEoid9REmfvc/Eeyt5i4R05PaI2hKfOPSiYemKHUmWaoEzDF1B7eJ fR95QJQNzOoJJafoaw7D9ZjEnbgOLEH3PNRUkpmp67UPXVdQUcb/4LHCeFZrr3nvKr0I 7hFw== X-Received: by 10.66.142.202 with SMTP id ry10mr26482320pab.86.1443438283733; Mon, 28 Sep 2015 04:04:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.100] (cpe-76-167-237-202.san.res.rr.com. [76.167.237.202]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id rb8sm18815240pab.14.2015.09.28.04.04.42 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 28 Sep 2015 04:04:43 -0700 (PDT) User-Agent: K-9 Mail for Android In-Reply-To: References: <20150927185031.GA20599@savin.petertodd.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----K2XHMH7BJOG79D2F9JZZ0RFBKDRHUF" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: Eric Lombrozo Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2015 04:04:49 -0700 To: Mike Hearn , Mike Hearn via bitcoin-dev , Peter Todd Message-ID: <10248633-FD7B-4D07-B4A2-27EC5D0AC0D3@gmail.com> X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Let's deploy BIP65 CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY! X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2015 11:04:44 -0000 ------K2XHMH7BJOG79D2F9JZZ0RFBKDRHUF Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 My initial reaction is just HUH?!?!? Is this some sophisticated form of humor I'm just not getting? On September 28, 2015 3:48:57 AM PDT, Mike Hearn via bitcoin-dev 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 > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >_______________________________________________ >bitcoin-dev mailing list >bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org >https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. ------K2XHMH7BJOG79D2F9JZZ0RFBKDRHUF Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit My initial reaction is just HUH?!?!? Is this some sophisticated form of humor I'm just not getting?

On September 28, 2015 3:48:57 AM PDT, Mike Hearn via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@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



bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. ------K2XHMH7BJOG79D2F9JZZ0RFBKDRHUF--