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 07A3118F2 for ; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 19:56:03 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-io0-f174.google.com (mail-io0-f174.google.com [209.85.223.174]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6E26D1E2 for ; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 19:56:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: by ioii196 with SMTP id i196so60805530ioi.3 for ; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 12:56:01 -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=CO8cA3gV/CnwKOFNAjVi335Im078PeoA5Z3reG5tjRA=; b=NYd1xYTnXQU5VNpyujtcU9FpnoqeT+Srlewln1Z/A+AA2sFv8VY+Pvx3u56yDMRml8 jkRdhXIP8niD4jJNsNJmwKpBBq2l0Sxu/WjDjl7jvaQQhcAUM9idXLn6ePd/P8fxGgdf zjNXNDRRLg4W2YIdz1fHBS6WUZqUw/P7X61CE= 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=CO8cA3gV/CnwKOFNAjVi335Im078PeoA5Z3reG5tjRA=; b=QCXCujOkqC6WHtOim1V+nsvioRlau7GQG2A1KBSRhNfAaLdtfBtCHzjf0MAWhk8wk5 ZvBxn5mLoZO2pFcAc+mqd4xj5l6vwfw1sbC0vN+hfi5ZcgG6c2VeWJUxOgxhv3nhP+n2 rvvdcRWyehN5+l4uNrXpw6S+i6qBhCV8KQvpm3/S5RhAAsKdPXXslP1X01d2H2THxIns Rc87Gmza8kHXJj+MVopfG6uzrlU0THi0XlMJOxSdKnwm0arwvbwWYI5hQS0Lmr8HktSG 2lzK/xELTjEPZtkm3XXVcgOuTR/VnovPrLhVuThKTdFDkBsAz2wNlNPWiGJmyLW3Uahf NtTA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQk6/cooXkkqjec0SGJfyhr8iG0aifnf+i6qOSnor2rx51GNAoEbGCWBIbNnUL6m/Pd7QtMp MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.107.165.140 with SMTP id o134mr6521730ioe.29.1443642961778; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 12:56:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.50.123.166 with HTTP; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 12:56:01 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <20150927185031.GA20599@savin.petertodd.org> Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 21:56:01 +0200 Message-ID: From: Mike Hearn To: Jeff Garzik Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1141fb90eb91380520fc5121 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: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 19:56:03 -0000 --001a1141fb90eb91380520fc5121 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > Field experience shows it successfully delivers new features to end users > without a global software upgrade. > The global upgrade is required for all full nodes in both types. If a full node doesn't upgrade then it no longer does what it was designed to do; if the user is OK with that, they should just run an SPV wallet or use blockchain.info or some other mechanism that consumes way fewer resources. But if you want the software you installed to achieve its stated goal, you *must* upgrade. There is no way around that. Jorge has said soft forks always lead to network convergence. No, they don't. You get constant mini divergences until everyone has upgraded, as opposed to a single divergence with a hard fork (until everyone has upgraded). The quantity of invalid blocks mined, on the other hand, is identical in both types. Adam has said "there is actually consensus", although I just said there isn't. Feel free to say what you really mean here Adam - there's consensus if you ignore people who don't agree, i.e. the concept of "developer consensus" doesn't actually mean anything. This would contradict your prior statements about how Bitcoin Core makes decisions, but alright .... Finally John, I fully agree with what you wrote. Debates that never end are bad news all round. Bitcoin Core has told the world it uses "developer consensus" to make decisions. I don't agree that's a good way to do things, but if Core wants to stick with it then there is no choice - as I am a developer, and I do not agree with the change, there is no consensus and the debate is over. Hey, I have an idea. Maybe we should organise a conference about soft vs hard forks. Let's have it down the road from where I live, a couple of weeks from now. Please submit your talk titles to me so I can vet them to ensure nobody does an offtopic talk ;) --001a1141fb90eb91380520fc5121 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Fiel= d experience shows it successfully delivers new features to end users witho= ut a global software upgrade.

T= he global upgrade is required for all full nodes in both types. If a full n= ode doesn't upgrade then it no longer does what it was designed to do; = if the user is OK with that, they should just run an SPV wallet or use blockchain.info or some other mechanism = that consumes way fewer resources.

But if you want= the software you installed to achieve its stated goal, you must=C2= =A0upgrade. There is no way around that.

Jorge has= said soft forks always lead to network convergence. No, they don't. Yo= u get constant mini divergences until everyone has upgraded, as opposed to = a single divergence with a hard fork (until everyone has upgraded). The qua= ntity of invalid blocks mined, on the other hand, is identical in both type= s.

Adam has said "there is actually consensus= ", although I just said there isn't. Feel free to say what you rea= lly mean here Adam - there's consensus if you ignore people who don'= ;t agree, i.e. the concept of "developer consensus" doesn't a= ctually mean anything. This would contradict your prior statements about ho= w Bitcoin Core makes decisions, but alright ....

F= inally John, I fully agree with what you wrote. Debates that never end are = bad news all round. Bitcoin Core has told the world it uses "developer= consensus" to make decisions. I don't agree that's a good way= to do things, but if Core wants to stick with it then there is no choice -= as I am a developer, and I do not agree with the change, there is no conse= nsus and the debate is over.

Hey, I have an idea. = Maybe we should organise a conference about soft vs hard forks. Let's h= ave it down the road from where I live, a couple of weeks from now. Please = submit your talk titles to me so I can vet them to ensure nobody does an of= ftopic talk ;)
--001a1141fb90eb91380520fc5121--