public inbox for bitcoindev@googlegroups.com
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Eric Voskuil <eric@voskuil.org>
To: Eric Lombrozo <elombrozo@gmail.com>,
	Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
	<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>,
	Tom Zander <tomz@freedommail.ch>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin Classic 1.2.0 released
Date: Sat, 7 Jan 2017 16:32:25 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <9b4e6445-518b-c723-77a4-2c388f2864cc@voskuil.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CABr1YTfc0BZ21-mwMohqo8_v8D1QnYiGB_SMeCLwFChY2MV_zA@mail.gmail.com>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1319 bytes --]

On 01/07/2017 12:55 AM, Eric Lombrozo via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> Your release announcement does not make it clear that Bitcoin Classic is
> incompatible with the current Bitcoin network and its consensus rules.
> It is a hard fork on mainnet with no safe activation as well as
> including other unsafe changes. There is also no BIP for the hard fork.
> There is also no evidence of community wide consensus for such a hard
> fork. This is dangerous and irresponsible.

While I agree with the sentiment, to be fair one should acknowledge that
Bitcoin Core has intentionally implemented two hard forks since Nov
2015. The earlier is released, and I assume the latter will be.

Neither was subject to activation, or prior public debate (see Buried
Deployments threads):

https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2016-November/thread.html

There was at least some internal discussion about whether a BIP should
document the latter having occurred, and that question was put to the list:

https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2016-November/013275.html

Some have argued that these are inconsequential changes. I disagree, as
the arguments is base on provably invalid assumptions. Nevertheless, if
hard fork is the threshold criteria here, Core has not met it.

e


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]

      parent reply	other threads:[~2017-01-08  0:32 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-01-06 10:16 [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin Classic 1.2.0 released Tom Zander
2017-01-07  8:13 ` Jonas Schnelli
2017-01-07  8:55 ` Eric Lombrozo
2017-01-07 15:15   ` Tom Zander
2017-01-07 20:12   ` Chris Priest
2017-01-07 20:17     ` David Vorick
2017-01-07 20:26       ` Chris Priest
2017-01-07 21:14         ` Eric Voskuil
2017-01-07 23:10         ` Aymeric Vitte
2017-01-07 23:49           ` Eric Voskuil
2017-01-08  0:28             ` Eric Lombrozo
2017-01-08  1:58               ` Chris Priest
2017-01-07 21:15     ` Btc Drak
2017-01-07 23:08       ` Tom Zander
2017-01-08  0:32   ` Eric Voskuil [this message]

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=9b4e6445-518b-c723-77a4-2c388f2864cc@voskuil.org \
    --to=eric@voskuil.org \
    --cc=bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=elombrozo@gmail.com \
    --cc=tomz@freedommail.ch \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox