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 1D01B481 for ; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 06:32:23 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-it0-f48.google.com (mail-it0-f48.google.com [209.85.214.48]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EF704124 for ; Wed, 29 Mar 2017 06:32:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-it0-f48.google.com with SMTP id e75so82159358itd.1 for ; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 23:32:21 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=bittorrent-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=Wmeyxtnf6SPrfhySVjjcvMCwg8ARJOAnpjECyWJi+9s=; b=mhs8PaWdwCWnUpf23vzWod/y699BcYjwLs+2wT80qceW4LhQRGtGvMKmICO5i60krA lllEe149ljU7jMxZGGFGzuMm5VCvRxDbMdaTY6SAAeuYT0JF2VfbBIKTN9II4BC3S1e6 Wy9KnlhufMu3pgRjNnLas7R+4AIFjO1DSCxLUlZvuSl7iS4AAMEH/6D9EA3bqJDek8Kq b8M4IYTKwFVjB5osnfa52tS8V4DVVcuhvMCJ25wTe4NLHCfxJomeylfCflTYgumrDg8D 7rpmeaQPtYxcUAs4zpO6cSbvdqOKixJEKxyF1dfncupFYyWqfKGuRY15Vk4hHvSp73ee 06sg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=Wmeyxtnf6SPrfhySVjjcvMCwg8ARJOAnpjECyWJi+9s=; b=OvCqKwbSs3yO6CSomkD/IYvVEpBpZPxyq/YE4nXxsVl2ZDK25JAtQPRsJxy3WujoMN 9l4Qe9AOnryXq1aZTAhnCTVLUUbsPd+HikaTK1FlQhwbP5+dbLiVR1thgGvhPhTd5tg0 7OgXsOBkeiEqayEHebkVAbmU+uycYrqiOaUkfLdFyPUfodX2LTM8Huklue5Y2DF1VukT 5GSBcrfgGjEHfkgDdXCBKgp/eVKf0HhKT7Ici56QmN9dzYpGwq3zUTtUi+HwKJ8lQshk EIMDBGVY8AdCDYIsfiEcV+1gkoLGDDNPz+6fa3RTEQFH535EzC/5F2yx/nN0c9FC2wua CLvw== X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H3GRbwFlCkW/jqh+VTG+S3S066Xx67nb4qW8d6SsXayKYuqNBI2FqslZa8kYM5TcS0MVaWXRIxgKOIHlHLB X-Received: by 10.107.164.36 with SMTP id n36mr29650040ioe.103.1490769141371; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 23:32:21 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.36.184.70 with HTTP; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 23:32:20 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Bram Cohen Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 23:32:20 -0700 Message-ID: To: Wang Chun <1240902@gmail.com>, Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a114220ac1d7ba6054bd8bd94 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM autolearn=no version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Hard fork proposal from last week's meeting 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: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 06:32:23 -0000 --001a114220ac1d7ba6054bd8bd94 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 9:59 AM, Wang Chun via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > The basic idea is, as many of us agree, hard fork is risky and should > be well prepared. We need a long time to deploy it. > Much as it may be appealing to repeal the block size limit now with a grace period until a replacement is needed in a repeal and replace strategy, it's dubious to assume that an idea can be agreed upon later when it can't be agreed upon now. Trying to put a time limit on it runs into the possibility that you'll find that whatever reasons there were for not having general agreement on a new setup before still apply, and running into the embarrassing situation of winding up sticking with the status quo after much sturm and drang. --001a114220ac1d7ba6054bd8bd94 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On T= ue, Mar 28, 2017 at 9:59 AM, Wang Chun via bitcoin-dev &l= t;bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

The basic idea is, as many of us agree, hard fork is risky and should
be well prepared. We need a long time to deploy it.
Much as it may be appealing to repeal the block size limit now= with a grace period until a replacement is needed in a repeal and replace = strategy, it's dubious to assume that an idea can be agreed upon later = when it can't be agreed upon now. Trying to put a time limit on it runs= into the possibility that you'll find that whatever reasons there were= for not having general agreement on a new setup before still apply, and ru= nning into the embarrassing situation of winding up sticking with the statu= s quo after much sturm and drang.

--001a114220ac1d7ba6054bd8bd94--