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 C200D22DB for ; Tue, 6 Oct 2015 19:40:27 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-pa0-f46.google.com (mail-pa0-f46.google.com [209.85.220.46]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 02CC91B9 for ; Tue, 6 Oct 2015 19:40:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: by pacfv12 with SMTP id fv12so223336677pac.2 for ; Tue, 06 Oct 2015 12:40:26 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=jX6yigcpHhk0MMTDdPrwpaXB4iVPDo3+piWptXEQW0E=; b=jREON1zLD0Dmue7tOzfAwqwkA6Mn8L9BKt7ywSBPa1hregket8lyoCXxOFfkDdDswI /axobI02cizdMjOYBZpID5clbX5tDh08oO1f9tyG1G+jHKxKER/GTHB2r0MQ2NYvBvox 8m/C3gc6/Jf0F8W1GAPe7Cteyz3WlmuUo619dRTsgO6Pek5vCErLemSJ0RRr/1TMjRF1 Hl07JIv30ATUghLI94khdTiJDnrPojOpueG08AQ0P9oGwveNnpSD5byO0CLMY8zVsysl rlh6HS8qhIsbOq2h3txIny7FjYEGX9rhgYl04PM2EgUIUncHwcoIqebqGkG/veG9qrx2 402g== X-Received: by 10.67.12.166 with SMTP id er6mr48439962pad.40.1444160426550; Tue, 06 Oct 2015 12:40:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.2.6] (cpe-76-91-152-174.socal.res.rr.com. [76.91.152.174]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id mk5sm35271229pab.44.2015.10.06.12.40.25 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 06 Oct 2015 12:40:25 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-6EDAE9CD-6FBA-40A8-9C64-4DDBC29580BB Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) From: naama.kates@gmail.com X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (12A405) In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2015 12:40:25 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: References: To: NotMike Hearn X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, HTML_MESSAGE, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW 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] This thread is not about the soft/hard fork technical debate 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: Tue, 06 Oct 2015 19:40:27 -0000 --Apple-Mail-6EDAE9CD-6FBA-40A8-9C64-4DDBC29580BB Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Just read the proposal for the dual modes... Think it would be best... Proto= col question? Do we discuss the algorithms here on this forum? Or... Sorry again for my thick skull! Nina K Sent from my iPhone > On Oct 6, 2015, at 1:34 AM, NotMike Hearn via bitcoin-dev wrote: >=20 > I think I can solve the debate and give everyone what they want. >=20 > Some people want BIP65, others do not. >=20 > We can roll out 65 in a clever way, such that Greg/PeterT can get it, but M= ike and Peter R don't need to have it (both versions can run alongside each o= ther). Even better, people can switch back and forth between versions as muc= h as they like. >=20 > How might this work? Well, paradoxically, we could do this by *imposing ad= ditional constraints* on transaction validation, such that transactions made= a very specific certain way will always look valid to non-CLTVers, but for C= LTVers they will not be valid unless the CLTV rules are followed. The obviou= s concern is that non-CLTV people might receive invalid payments. However, t= heir software is already set up to request payments in a non-CLTV way, so, l= uckily, this is actually not a problem at all! SPV clients can elect to only= connect to nodes which are non-CLTV. >=20 > Problem solved! >=20 > I am happy to have solved this problem for you all, and ended this discord= harmoniously. If we all put our heads together, these words of founding fat= her Aretha Franklin will ring true: "there's nothing we can't overcome". >=20 >=20 >> On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 3:29 AM, Marcel Jamin via bitcoin-dev wrote: >> This is childish and very disappointing to see. >>=20 >> 2015-10-06 9:20 GMT+02:00 Eric Lombrozo via bitcoin-dev : >>> I prefer the term "clown". >>>=20 >>> Can we please move on? >>>=20 >>> ------ Original Message ------ >>> From: "cipher anthem via bitcoin-dev" >>> To: milly@bitcoins.info >>> Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org >>> Sent: 10/6/2015 12:17:14 AM >>> Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] This thread is not about the soft/hard fork t= echnical debate >>>=20 >>>>> Sent: Monday, October 05, 2015 at 8:21 PM >>>>> From: "Milly Bitcoin via bitcoin-dev" >>>>> To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org >>>>> Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] This thread is not about the soft/hard for= k technical debate >>>>>> On 10/5/2015 4:05 PM, Steven Pine via bitcoin-dev wrote: >>>>>> It's pretty clear Mike has turned into concern troll and bully. >>>>=20 >>>>> "troll" and, even worse, "concern troll" are terms generally used by >>>>> teenagers on places like Reddit to complain about someone who doesn't= >>>>> agree with them. >>>>=20 >>>> They should substitute troll for cultist so they appear more profession= al... >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> bitcoin-dev mailing list >>>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org >>>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >>>=20 >>> _______________________________________________ >>> bitcoin-dev mailing list >>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org >>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >>=20 >>=20 >> _______________________________________________ >> bitcoin-dev mailing list >> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org >> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >=20 > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev --Apple-Mail-6EDAE9CD-6FBA-40A8-9C64-4DDBC29580BB Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Just read the proposal for the dual mo= des... Think it would be best... Protocol question?  Do we discuss the a= lgorithms here on this forum?  Or...

Sorry aga= in for my thick skull!

Nina K

Sent fr= om my iPhone

On Oct 6, 2015, at 1:34 AM, NotMike Hearn via bit= coin-dev <bitcoi= n-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

I think I can solve the debate and give ever= yone what they want.

Some people want BIP65, others do not.

We= can roll out 65 in a clever way, such that Greg/PeterT can get it, but Mike= and Peter R don't need to have it (both versions can run alongside each oth= er). Even better, people can switch back and forth between versions as much a= s they like.

How might this work? Well, paradoxically, we could do th= is by *imposing additional constraints* on transaction validation, such that= transactions made a very specific certain way will always look valid to non= -CLTVers, but for CLTVers they will not be valid unless the CLTV rules are f= ollowed. The obvious concern is that non-CLTV people might receive invalid p= ayments. However, their software is already set up to request payments in a n= on-CLTV way, so, luckily, this is actually not a problem at all! SPV clients= can elect to only connect to nodes which are non-CLTV.

P= roblem solved!

I am happy to have solved this problem for you all, an= d ended this discord harmoniously. If we all put our heads together, these w= ords of founding father Aretha Franklin will ring true: "there's nothing we c= an't overcome".


On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 3:29 AM, Marcel Jamin via bitcoin-de= v <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> w= rote:
This is childish and= very disappointing to see.

2015-10-06 9:20 GMT+0= 2:00 Eric Lombrozo via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.li= nuxfoundation.org>:
I prefer t= he term "clown".

Can we please move on?

------ Original Message ------
From: "cipher anthem via bitcoin-dev" <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.o= rg>
To: milly@bitcoins.= info
Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Sent: 10/6/2015 12:17:14 AM
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] This thread is not about the soft/hard fork techn= ical debate

 Sent: Monday, October 05, 2015 at 8:21 PM
 From: "Milly Bitcoin via bitcoin-dev" <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfounda= tion.org>
 To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] This thread is not about the soft/hard fork= technical debate
 On 10/5/2015 4:05 PM, Steven Pine via bitcoin-dev wrote:
 It's pretty clear Mike has turned into concern troll and bully.

 "troll" and, even worse, "concern troll" are terms generally used by  teenagers on places like Reddit to complain about someone who doesn't<= br>  agree with them.

They should substitute troll for cultist so they appear more professional...=
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
b= itcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailma= n/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
b= itcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailma= n/listinfo/bitcoin-dev


_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.l= inuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailma= n/listinfo/bitcoin-dev


____________________= ___________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list<= br>bitcoin-de= v@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation= .org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
= --Apple-Mail-6EDAE9CD-6FBA-40A8-9C64-4DDBC29580BB--