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 6D9B716F5 for ; Mon, 28 Sep 2015 10:48:58 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-ig0-f174.google.com (mail-ig0-f174.google.com [209.85.213.174]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F1A63100 for ; Mon, 28 Sep 2015 10:48:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: by igcpb10 with SMTP id pb10so52244144igc.1 for ; Mon, 28 Sep 2015 03:48:57 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=vinumeris.com; s=google; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=LibkSKpp1e8uT09TAxLouFQb7Qlkg4buv8D6VA2UZHE=; b=EbwmfCY7nOrw1byY9iWCloMXVgtShNnwzcZ7acCoJOM1EyX7IRHMiNQJ9tyxssNiC6 wI1pQ7SXUjeYsYi811fOWEsk5MEs5vDWUr2Zxkc86c0bkqA5/jQ8scAO5tidC1uCLfvS jTK1TE32oE+gDecDTVl0pyNyB4ZyUzxyR0DF8= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=LibkSKpp1e8uT09TAxLouFQb7Qlkg4buv8D6VA2UZHE=; b=Ezodu5pnsvup6oknLTZ2j4Me2Uhk7V78HDZci0pHn3nviQhPnHhTCH/AXsyuv0tHq+ yEew3DqVnM86eDd+9ikceos2VZKT5qqI+0OBjqH5c07Ac0+J2ReQUUZb0EsMBGRDKbdb N8Z3RHgFo7Ni6+0grFdFRkswKSPLXxnKCwyWcf4KS+UBekkG4rkNk7k4uwVUc/qLbfdD dhLW9BzRGrrzA+om4BXYSs9byyWWRhDNyK5W4o1vT0KJvx05OU+dFM/yB5RiTGofWEzT 7G+6gi+QQnizl+8wkcUmft3PPxuoL2O3LujFuxuG6kayhLoPoSMjDpSXOQHKjXz6SIpA 6kRg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlmCheYw8CERY+bhpAHTSzxqy08GkN3gIboFTQv/W7PN1/AUZZAxOCb8QUNYwQb5wTwlDH9 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.50.79.232 with SMTP id m8mr1096649igx.83.1443437337403; Mon, 28 Sep 2015 03:48:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.50.226.144 with HTTP; Mon, 28 Sep 2015 03:48:57 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20150927185031.GA20599@savin.petertodd.org> References: <20150927185031.GA20599@savin.petertodd.org> Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2015 12:48:57 +0200 Message-ID: From: Mike Hearn To: Peter Todd Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e013a0606c086650520cc71af X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HTML_MESSAGE,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] Let's deploy BIP65 CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY! 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: Mon, 28 Sep 2015 10:48:58 -0000 --089e013a0606c086650520cc71af Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 There is *no* consensus on using a soft fork to deploy this feature. It will result in the same problems as all the other soft forks - SPV wallets will become less reliable during the rollout period. I am against that, as it's entirely avoidable. Make it a hard fork and my objection will be dropped. Until then, as there is no consensus, you need to do one of two things: 1) Drop the "everyone must agree to make changes" idea that people here like to peddle, and do it loudly, so everyone in the community is correctly informed 2) Do nothing --089e013a0606c086650520cc71af Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
There is no consensus on= using a soft fork to deploy this feature. It will result in the same probl= ems as all the other soft forks - SPV wallets will become less reliable dur= ing the rollout period. I am against that, as it's entirely avoidable.<= /div>

Make i= t a hard fork and my objection will be dropped.

Until then, as there is no consen= sus, you need to do one of two things:

=
1) Drop the "everyone must agree to m= ake changes" idea that people here like to peddle, and do it loudly, s= o everyone in the community is correctly informed

2) Do nothing


--089e013a0606c086650520cc71af--