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 5F9781255 for ; Thu, 3 Sep 2015 16:13:37 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-wi0-f177.google.com (mail-wi0-f177.google.com [209.85.212.177]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AC4901C9 for ; Thu, 3 Sep 2015 16:13:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wibz8 with SMTP id z8so104475311wib.1 for ; Thu, 03 Sep 2015 09:13:35 -0700 (PDT) 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=gv3R0N0oIMVLdMQ2vyY2RPi5JYsCBmHpCcVVvtRUT7o=; b=gvokl0bp5VggrXKKxnFg7tv9l/e/T+JgmwPC0I5VN98LzNpYDKD3nlFZzk7dT7BRmo ZeH3ptvQ4w/5P/+QTGJReYLktPy+Pmp8U66L0J3YCu4B4EmqgLykXSc9TwpHuWpIiEy/ niOXl+xEjYg93QPnttDJBZdp5kr2ZdLX/ha+yZkMSz52sRtMw8bmOD32giYzYOf5Si5N lDqwsfVxMijKkUCPZpXR+EepRK1R2bv5/PxVuEluJ6RY01iDxzbprc3dKYbU7K+8Z12X 3VCYyGHXsHhCEqhXGqVZUB1iIJFIN+QdjUM0bd5vQnarxHxyckrp9f4EN72qn950rgjD acUw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkFtTrtNPZcjjJbTMdN6bb/GLHGAS7JNMSO3H5yTJNnedAOSAzLK7QASfq6mG4ud7pVZkbj MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.122.97 with SMTP id lr1mr52113069wjb.26.1441296815089; Thu, 03 Sep 2015 09:13:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.194.31.166 with HTTP; Thu, 3 Sep 2015 09:13:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.194.31.166 with HTTP; Thu, 3 Sep 2015 09:13:34 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2015 18:13:34 +0200 Message-ID: From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= To: Btc Drak Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e01228c70ae0187051eda10d0 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,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] BIP 100 specification 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, 03 Sep 2015 16:13:37 -0000 --089e01228c70ae0187051eda10d0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Sep 3, 2015 5:58 PM, "Btc Drak via bitcoin-dev" < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 3:34 PM, Jeff Garzik wrote: > > A discussion of rolling out BIP 100 will not be avoided :) > > > > It is a hard fork; it would be silly to elide discussion of these key > > issues. > > > > I don't get the community's recent interest in avoiding certain topics. > > It's not a matter of avoiding the subject, it's a whole separate > discussion and in the interests of efficient discussion, it is best > done separately. There's a whole BIP dedicated to the discussion of > consensus forks which you should probably give some input in also, > BIP99 [1] > > Once we come to an agreement and can say "here's what we're doing > about blocksize, it will be X, or we'll raise by this algo", then we > can discuss the best way to implement the hard fork. > > [1] https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/181 In fact, that discussion can happen in parallel. But it is more efficient to do so in one place instead of in each of the 5+ hardfork proposals (bip99 itself has a hardfork proposal with its code ready). --089e01228c70ae0187051eda10d0 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8


On Sep 3, 2015 5:58 PM, "Btc Drak via bitcoin-dev" <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 3:34 PM, Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@gmail.com> wrote:
> > A discussion of rolling out BIP 100 will not be avoided :)
> >
> > It is a hard fork; it would be silly to elide discussion of these key
> > issues.
> >
> > I don't get the community's recent interest in avoiding certain topics.
>
> It's not a matter of avoiding the subject, it's a whole separate
> discussion and in the interests of efficient discussion, it is best
> done separately. There's a whole BIP dedicated to the discussion of
> consensus forks which you should probably give some input in also,
> BIP99 [1]
>
> Once we come to an agreement and can say "here's what we're doing
> about blocksize, it will be X, or we'll raise by this algo", then we
> can discuss the best way to implement the hard fork.
>
> [1] https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/181

In fact, that discussion can happen in parallel. But it is more efficient to do so in one place instead of in each of the 5+ hardfork proposals (bip99 itself has a hardfork proposal with its code ready).

--089e01228c70ae0187051eda10d0--