From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1UFpwp-0003kN-P0 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 17:58:43 +0000 X-ACL-Warn: Received: from vps7135.xlshosting.net ([178.18.90.41]) by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) id 1UFpwo-0007Y7-Rm for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 17:58:43 +0000 Received: by vps7135.xlshosting.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 8897233C896; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 18:58:36 +0100 (CET) Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 18:58:36 +0100 From: Pieter Wuille To: Mark Friedenbach Message-ID: <20130313175825.GA21242@vps7135.xlshosting.net> References: <201303131256.30144.luke@dashjr.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-PGP-Key: http://sipa.ulyssis.org/pubkey.asc User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Spam-Score: -1.2 (-) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (pieter.wuille[at]gmail.com) 0.0 DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED No valid author signature, adsp_override is CUSTOM_MED -2.4 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain 1.2 NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED ADSP custom_med hit, and not from a mailing list X-Headers-End: 1UFpwo-0007Y7-Rm Cc: "bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net" Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] 0.8.1 ideas X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 17:58:43 -0000 On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 10:41:29AM -0700, Mark Friedenbach wrote: > 4) At some point in the future once we've crossed an acceptable adoption > threshold, the miners remove the above patch in a coordinated way. > > Does that not get us past this crisis without a hard-fork? This is a hardfork: it means some nodes will have to accept blocks they formerly considered invalid. -- Pieter