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 31418C4A for ; Thu, 10 Mar 2016 15:46:59 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-vk0-f46.google.com (mail-vk0-f46.google.com [209.85.213.46]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7E28A13F for ; Thu, 10 Mar 2016 15:46:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-vk0-f46.google.com with SMTP id e185so100097460vkb.1 for ; Thu, 10 Mar 2016 07:46:58 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=jtimon-cc.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc; bh=igYIOb8PkFzUCbRP+imi+qydelG8pbVxpt008yZp70g=; b=qoN/d90HRqLRWGbLBOxecZPAFTNSq6Eun8k2FVBqOD3bT9CX7rUnZ9+K50AIK6LCxo j5kRsspwEzQSfxYKzUCSy8BbXXWtuCqvzI9WRKjSpDWDBvce4z8DdGdg0McPmKJUNn0Z pgqgE8qGqjdKp2LJkNaB8JkG8yD6MDPHYvO+TptA/LNBD1zAix1A9xNgqFa2xezLpiWo tOSCEKTZtIdrtW4I8sF+CofTFYtDdjhiXBxaHJ2gGIpPFrhwnVB7yR5DgN6rNCo+DuhO 5O32d1hdzCdnXw6tjYW5YNV82TX8nCsPmulT5fz726flFxP/iPNUFL66uHrutSNr/wCY TblQ== 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; bh=igYIOb8PkFzUCbRP+imi+qydelG8pbVxpt008yZp70g=; b=eDoZYFNCl4FTQxke1MQBclXB//DA4PNSwL0YhVpeZa95QpW0/RL+Kvg1ApuAuIoJAG jJWbxXQxsZRYyhmR358qeWdfQAef8UKcumY/fWPuShC6FKgybNH/9mRMrgmcWx2tWUVv Xe7Szvnzser3jpFhKGiYaKZIZfWCxUYPoMWs0emxbB7LBuAOFGNJNHkvClNL8hupbTs2 Zs03gV1UsrnKj9MvBlePVAn1xXVy8BAyMVgCFWNpeVWG8WKvxZ/YBX4h+9V0nPIyvT7d zZFpVHp0ENT3isvAf3Y7bUN8TCOMJtqicjPRhsmjeYnaehAF4LEoJDMVtDzEWt5p/MxR /YWw== X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJK6IKXIdgz2pdGCavQcnpj6krURHTS6ryQxvvs2E1s0B3eIQ4kXShZ1HSOrt/wCbf9jvT9+5+PpjGPAFA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.31.1.138 with SMTP id 132mr4155264vkb.140.1457624817676; Thu, 10 Mar 2016 07:46:57 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.31.141.73 with HTTP; Thu, 10 Mar 2016 07:46:57 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.31.141.73 with HTTP; Thu, 10 Mar 2016 07:46:57 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <56E0C197.7040708@musalbas.com> References: <201603081904.28687.luke@dashjr.org> <56E0C197.7040708@musalbas.com> Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 16:46:57 +0100 Message-ID: From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= To: Mustafa Al-Bassam Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113da7dc794dbf052db3b952 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,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 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 15:51:49 +0000 Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP 2 promotion to Final 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: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 15:46:59 -0000 --001a113da7dc794dbf052db3b952 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Mar 10, 2016 02:04, "Mustafa Al-Bassam via bitcoin-dev" < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > >A hard-fork BIP requires adoption from the entire Bitcoin economy, > particularly including those selling desirable goods and services in > exchange for bitcoin payments, as well as Bitcoin holders who wish to > spend or would spend their bitcoins (including selling for other > currencies) differently in the event of such a hard-fork. > What if one shop owner, for example, out of thousands, doesn't adapt the > hard-fork? It is expected, and should perhaps be encouraged, for a small > minority to not accept a hard fork, but by the wording of the BIP > ("entire Bitcoin economy"), one shop owner can veto a hard-fork. No, the hardfork can still happen, but if a small group remains using the old chain (a single person will likely abandon it very soon), then it cannot be said that deployment was universal and thus the hardfork BIP doesn't move to the final state. As long as there's users using the old chain, a hardfork BIP shouldn't become final if I understood BIP2 correctly. In other words, uncontroversial hardfork bips can make it to the final state once deployed, controversial hardforks may never become universally deployed. --001a113da7dc794dbf052db3b952 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On Mar 10, 2016 02:04, "Mustafa Al-Bassam via bitcoin-dev" <bitcoin-dev@lists.li= nuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> >A hard-fork BIP requires adoption from the entire Bitcoin economy,=
> particularly including those selling desirable goods and services in > exchange for bitcoin payments, as well as Bitcoin holders who wish to<= br> > spend or would spend their bitcoins (including selling for other
> currencies) differently in the event of such a hard-fork.
> What if one shop owner, for example, out of thousands, doesn't ada= pt the
> hard-fork? It is expected, and should perhaps be encouraged, for a sma= ll
> minority to not accept a hard fork, but by the wording of the BIP
> ("entire Bitcoin economy"), one shop owner can veto a hard-f= ork.

No, the hardfork can still happen, but if a small group rema= ins using the old chain (a single person will likely abandon it very soon),= then it cannot be said that deployment was universal and thus the hardfork= BIP doesn't move to the final state. As long as there's users usin= g the old chain, a hardfork BIP shouldn't become final if I understood = BIP2 correctly.

In other words,=C2=A0 uncontroversial hardfork bips can make= it to the final state once deployed, controversial hardforks may never bec= ome universally deployed.

--001a113da7dc794dbf052db3b952--