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 044DC20C9 for ; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 19:24:47 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: delayed 00:06:41 by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from outbound-mail02.dca.untd.com (outbound-mail02.dca.untd.com [64.136.47.36]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 31D77134 for ; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 19:24:46 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=juno.com; s=alpha; t=1443641085; bh=47DEQpj8HBSa+/TImW+5JCeuQeRkm5NMpJWZG3hSuFU=; l=0; h=Subject:To:Cc:From:Message-ID:Date:Content-Type; b=d15OnygTQwmQTwS2F737ar/112C4enYF9f6vuMlWAas4DS3eZYeF4nCtfKuwcoJc0 TCMpfdZ5uLdJi2864vd5hwtjMP93Ob02KTDy2x76pcJT/UC36ZUwUYjvRrDQLP1/nx PA3pVtH3Umc+KDYgTEPT38h/FmVGQttIJd1mwfNM= Received: from [192.168.19.2] (66-87-71-201.pools.spcsdns.net [66.87.71.201]) by smtpout04.dca.untd.com with SMTP id AABMA2PK2A432PVS (sender ); Wed, 30 Sep 2015 12:17:12 -0700 (PDT) To: =?UTF-8?Q?Jorge_Tim=c3=b3n?= , Mike Hearn References: <20150927185031.GA20599@savin.petertodd.org> <20150929200302.GA5051@amethyst.visucore.com> <87wpv8ft61.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> From: John Winslow Message-ID: <560C3536.1070503@juno.com> Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 12:17:10 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Originating-Ip: 66.87.71.201 X-UNTD-BodySize: 3203 X-ContentStamp: 21:10:270695597 X-MAIL-INFO: 0f10909510e9e9919020a0f020e4a055c171050d0d70a180f5a595b981953d60b990819595fd90208499913d9020e02900f400e14961a0f100f9 X-UNTD-OriginStamp: 3BHtMxlTjQpeqTE3t6I7r5ps6Aq/+SIJjWPIqkCt/oTWtbyL9SGNpA== X-UNTD-Peer-Info: 10.171.42.34|smtpout04.dca.untd.com|smtpout04.dca.untd.com|jtwinslow@juno.com X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, FREEMAIL_FROM, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW, T_DKIM_INVALID 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: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 19:24:47 -0000 Two observations from a Bitcoin investor and non-programmer: 1) I think it's possible that those who are adamantly opposed to a soft fork may be largely (if not completely) correct on purely technical terms, but that they also may be underestimating the risk of a contentious hardfork. 2) The downsides of a softfork are unclear because they seem to be based primarily on inelegant coding, not that it couldn't be made to work. As a Bitcoin investor, I am becoming increasingly concerned that the rancorous and mostly unproductive debates occurring here daily are slowly closing the window of opportunity for Bitcoin to succeed. If this were a start-up or public company, the stock would be plunging. Why? Simple. Uncertainty. While I think (and I'm sure most here would agree) that these debates are necessary (and due to Bitcoin's decentralized nature perhaps even necessary to have in a public forum) but when these debates go on and on indefinitely thereby reducing confidence in Bitcoin's future something different needs to be done. In a public company or startup these debates would be happening in private with a an eye on competition, public/market perception, timing and anticipation of a shareholder-value-increasing outcome followed by a press release or marketing campaign. And the clock is always ticking. My suggestion is the top devs from both sides need to get together offline and decide what the best compromise would be and then publicly promote a non-contentious solution that balances the technical with market concerns that everyone can get behind. Continuing to debate technical issues ad-infinitum without compromise or waiting until the Hong Kong conference in December to start making a decision while Bitcoin dies on the vine should not be an option. If anything, the conference should be the time at the end of which a confidence-inspiring technical roadmap is announced. Further, I would like to add that in my perception what Bitcoin needs to and can easily become is essentially a public utility/backbone blockchain (like IP is to the internet) upon which all current and future blockchain stakeholders should see as their best and cheapest option for entering the space. For this to happen Bitcoin, from a user's standpoint needs to be simple and reliable, and from an investor/developer standpoint cost-effective and scalable. I don't see why this can't happen. JTW On 9/30/2015 8:55 AM, Jorge Timón via bitcoin-dev wrote: On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 2:30 PM, Mike Hearn via bitcoin-dev wrote: >> This will not change the fact that the rollout strategy is bad and nobody >> has answered my extremely basic question: why is it being done in this way, >> given the numerous downsides? > You seem to be the only one who thinks that softforks have "numerous > downsides" over hardforks. > So everybody just basically disagrees with the assumption in your > question and thus nobody can answer it. > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > >