Re: [bitcoin-dev] An implementation of BIP102 as a softfork.

[Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1068 bytes --]

On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 06:19:55AM -0800, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 05:29:05AM -0800, Jonathan Toomim via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> > As a first impression, I think this proposal is intellectually interesting, but crufty and hackish and should never actually be deployed. Writing code for Bitcoin in a future in which we have deployed a few generalized softforks this way sounds terrifying.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> > It might be possible to make that a bit simpler with recursion, or by doing subsequent generalized softforks in a way that doesn't have multi-levels-deep block-within-a-block-within-a-block stuff. Still: ugh.
> 
> Your fear is misplaced: it's trivial to avoid recursion with a bit of
> planning.
> 
> For instance, if Bitcoin was redesigned to incorporate the forced fork

Actually, a better name is probably "forced soft-fork", making this
clear we're using the soft-fork mechanism to force everyone to upgrade.

-- 
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
00000000000000000831fc2554d9370aeba2701fff09980123d24a615eee7416

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 650 bytes --]