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 9C33A902 for ; Sun, 8 Jan 2017 00:32:17 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-pg0-f45.google.com (mail-pg0-f45.google.com [74.125.83.45]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DB3A817B for ; Sun, 8 Jan 2017 00:32:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pg0-f45.google.com with SMTP id 204so9998309pge.0 for ; Sat, 07 Jan 2017 16:32:16 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=voskuil-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to; bh=6yxOAt4c+EXACjbt3Lc6u/ryKT/FEzMURA+yBaDTJnY=; b=2QW9IPrUoHCgD/zhZXMdeSL6UaD22ZJLGE+tz7a42Lcn9CGpeYF1rylScGH41gjGF5 IT/xSRrQJvNJdxc3CITN463kCqfTZoKsTMPHNtc9mZHP9btjIUt1p+xD6uGxH++TfV4G YALcQUAnliouCJ1IvLKs4/5HkFZzIO9Rsb24wiXrUerxSevSDtd6Bom2ZYVv1JWnyN+I wfnS8gjDosMYPWfJU0wm+7MFp/MK11qfgD1l29+E06bZGLNEPzmTAZw/oDJueEAAUTkI 7/d6DgRIgtlKsFZrqE3e6yRzKoMEVKcTHrFE2d7VxwE4yli6YjHBTlZHp6Alm2omPLCU o3Ow== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=6yxOAt4c+EXACjbt3Lc6u/ryKT/FEzMURA+yBaDTJnY=; b=sI07uNP/3jUgvmOeMSh4Jq7mR0h2qe+U4G7xrYwT0mbgnEQnIk6A5pVLtNgZrE/PUx dmdhhUbLibSzrs5vVWGdcwbPkwtZtSOt+/ioKFVdmvvNux8kC4DsqJDG1vulmjlTfvY0 e0ueyJ5KvwoWI9UrWFLkwSXNisHCHSakUX8b0En5RMMyE+zIV8EDe3bCYXlIDD78PxUd o3qbYi2H0A/uxEMZ/UjL5gpcf2/CDYXedmyubp8ZBu1XkAMg5/9e5OH0AQd81Za6bDrb qBcgn+gy3yPvydlnvChQG9YwCFYumoe6k/Q+XLHJeRjN811vn8WcZOQqSwF8zhPcUrtn 9oYg== X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXID5PMGriXZWCyxcFtTDQRRAqcu3NcxSZanbkDZtFwJFjNkcbLJsTHMuhPiGniscg== X-Received: by 10.98.206.6 with SMTP id y6mr3752426pfg.122.1483835536557; Sat, 07 Jan 2017 16:32:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?IPv6:2601:600:9000:d69e:e8e1:ace0:f3ec:f2b0? ([2601:600:9000:d69e:e8e1:ace0:f3ec:f2b0]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id e84sm123295058pfl.79.2017.01.07.16.32.15 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 07 Jan 2017 16:32:16 -0800 (PST) To: Eric Lombrozo , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion , Tom Zander References: <7169224.bI6Cz5OEL8@cherry> From: Eric Voskuil X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110 Message-ID: <9b4e6445-518b-c723-77a4-2c388f2864cc@voskuil.org> Date: Sat, 7 Jan 2017 16:32:25 -0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.5.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="LUbsaA8SqFoVClwcl11OgqQOT27TqJEE5" X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 08 Jan 2017 00:35:59 +0000 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin Classic 1.2.0 released 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, 08 Jan 2017 00:32:17 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --LUbsaA8SqFoVClwcl11OgqQOT27TqJEE5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 01/07/2017 12:55 AM, Eric Lombrozo via bitcoin-dev wrote: > Your release announcement does not make it clear that Bitcoin Classic i= s > 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/thr= ead.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 lis= t: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2016-November/013= 275.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 --LUbsaA8SqFoVClwcl11OgqQOT27TqJEE5 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJYcYiZAAoJEDzYwH8LXOFO7wkH/j0V/jGPK5mxGbbGdzyy62c0 wNrq67nspXiGcY0kAxf6wc3dNm3pDXPvB+H0BSY3Mfp23qcV9WwhFK4kP3dWjjxV Pivw4LqycyM54WrXNgzpdYqRhxkho6HLcY6s09/UYWcsv+QPTu/hI+E7IUhem8lb JD1l09PG+4vHi8ntOr2JQJ2Y8gR4UJvJbrVVaSvRFU3wdddum1Qk+XLZJIlYkmhA NN2dFBzkqg7P3COaifSz+ScxcBnMc8RZSLGtNRGIjfnq5fsNLSYWAQppMiSN5uJA B+hO6fWRBcX9sKj0+2d34dHUUzSY9IykqyZ83WJQPzKqQIh2Ut+SGsQuUVoG+f0= =PN9s -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --LUbsaA8SqFoVClwcl11OgqQOT27TqJEE5--