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 840EEBC3 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2017 21:31:31 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-vk0-f50.google.com (mail-vk0-f50.google.com [209.85.213.50]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 118F814E for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2017 21:31:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-vk0-f50.google.com with SMTP id r126so2863362vkg.0 for ; Tue, 11 Jul 2017 14:31:30 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=uouPuq3cQBFRjxtHCwsKMwafUgZF0Ngms6IVZrYZdTY=; b=fCbMqD7nTrgMk/kj7U+tkLrWPWvLCr8FlO2/KiOfyNnZw46B9Kz9ooG1OyRXCibg/w Z0KdQB63F08lG0XwWgBYvbJb48Yb7TzNouXJKemgx+EHvOMROPJeBXbTUMaPY72ZV2Q+ dypit/ALaTc8iwOChoXnhmka9MMaUxM2kTQFSulEACoxfA1uTCqXwDLH3hIB3MKrJoeI VBtL3h3AvYkFNVcpNeutcl/WOT63JJJyxdTf8KdYFwXmp7Kq0HcCY32j7lly+tVPZ7QU plogk4laXRhudtvVkOt/Gf9U57TjHundlCXcorMQHV6TJK2fhfDuGt1C4e1tPWqnp5Eb gtSQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=uouPuq3cQBFRjxtHCwsKMwafUgZF0Ngms6IVZrYZdTY=; b=Hiu/ZuLEu2JnnTuTpFHY9kUxRJG4I2WP9COtXq1uXhjDEMWs8fAJnkEB+qL2/HVBLh HmBvs7Zfx9VbTA5dgDllQQG1pOA7e93qV9T83yttOdwnYOyFu6YJVDvM3iBxPApmNKs9 01My9uNPwOwQ5EUZCSb1pzCofwUjJuo3IEDmjEGmd93gg0TRNiFm1U2MW7BJRD+IDti5 ZgcYIV+rS0e0hMnBGwV1jqbuZ2DOJCDV22GjK3n95rkKYv10dfz2ck4NHSCIPpk/V+gS a9CT8XkwRX5sC95w6DUhf7eNKVDXo5l9yn1G9jRkaAtbxC15CCCjC+RWok5zjWlc46yL MBvw== X-Gm-Message-State: AIVw1116t/I5eFlLuGfdOIRAavnG4tmskOoZr+23K2+d2JBPTAxYg3ue +55PEMiZHYMG0XzdgYYiNexJihRoVA== X-Received: by 10.31.158.77 with SMTP id h74mr29961vke.84.1499808690240; Tue, 11 Jul 2017 14:31:30 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: gmaxwell@gmail.com Received: by 10.103.40.2 with HTTP; Tue, 11 Jul 2017 14:31:29 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <0119661e-a11a-6d4b-c9ec-fd510bd4f144@gmail.com> From: Gregory Maxwell Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2017 21:31:29 +0000 X-Google-Sender-Auth: VY7rO_dPwTbQZCuMaOhgyC6wU6s Message-ID: To: Paul Sztorc , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, FREEMAIL_FROM, 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 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 11 Jul 2017 21:53:58 +0000 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Updating the Scaling Roadmap 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: Tue, 11 Jul 2017 21:31:31 -0000 On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 8:18 PM, Paul Sztorc via bitcoin-dev wrote: > I wrote the roadmap to try to be representative of a Core / developer > position. A fine intention, but I've checked with many of the top contributors and it sounds like the only regular developer you spoke with was Luke-Jr. Next time you seek to represent someone you might want to try talking to them! > I am philosophically against hard forks, but HFs were in the end > of the previous roadmap so I felt it should stay. And, I felt that if I I think the project is not philosophically against hardforks, at least not in an absolute sense. Part of the reason they were discussed in the capacity document was to make it clear that I wasn't, and to invite other project members to expose disagreement (though I'd mostly checked in advance...) But these recently proposed ultra-hasty highly contentious changes, that seem to be being suggested on shorter and shorter timeframes; I do think the project is actually opposed to those in a very strong sense. But if you were instead to talk about things like fixing timewarp, recovering header bits, etc. It would clearly be the other way. At least at the moment computers and bandwidth are improving; I don't think any regular developers are opposed to hardforks that change capacity well tech improvements and protocol improvements have made it obviously not much of a trade-off. Personally, I wish the project had previously adopted a license that requires derived works to not accept any block the derived-from work wouldn't accept for at least two years, or otherwise the derivative has to be clearly labeled not-bitcoin. :P In any case, I think it's safe to say that people's opinions on hardforks are complicated. And all the smoke right now with unusually poorly executed proposals probably clouds clear thinking.