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 D4059A48 for ; Sun, 16 Oct 2016 17:05:05 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail.bluematt.me (mail.bluematt.me [192.241.179.72]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B964CA7 for ; Sun, 16 Oct 2016 17:05:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [172.17.0.2] (gw.vpn.bluematt.me [162.243.132.6]) by mail.bluematt.me (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9E97B134545; Sun, 16 Oct 2016 17:05:02 +0000 (UTC) To: Tom Zander , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion References: <1782741.nelbyupFSb@strawberry> <1476639436.uo9cdjJaci@strawberry> From: Matt Corallo Message-ID: <5803B33B.2090809@mattcorallo.com> Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2016 17:04:59 +0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1476639436.uo9cdjJaci@strawberry> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] On the security of soft forks X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2016 17:05:05 -0000 I highly recommend you read the excellent thread on soft fork risks at https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-December/012014.html and respond there instead of getting off topic for this thread. Matt On 10/16/16 16:42, Tom Zander via bitcoin-dev wrote: > On Sunday, 16 October 2016 12:35:58 CEST Gavin Andresen wrote: >> On Sun, Oct 16, 2016 at 10:58 AM, Tom Zander via bitcoin-dev < >> >> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: >>> The fallow period sounds waaaay to short. I suggest 2 months at minimum >>> since anyone that wants to be safe needs to upgrade. >> >> I asked a lot of businesses and individuals how long it would take them to >> upgrade to a new release over the last year or two. >> >> Nobody said it would take them more than two weeks. > > The question you asked them was likely about the block size. The main > difference is that SPV users do not need to update after BIP109, but they do > need to have a new wallet when SegWit transactions are being sent to them. > > This upgrade affects also end users, not just businesses etc. > > Personally, I'd say that 2 months is even too fast. > >