public inbox for bitcoindev@googlegroups.com
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Dave Scotese <dscotese@litmocracy.com>
To: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] This thread is not about the soft/hard fork technical debate
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2015 13:54:38 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAGLBAhenb3D2FYZQFgGhyWT9JafwwVMzCow=tFbNfQdLJpdx0g@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <2081461.sDX5ARzIdv@garp>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1545 bytes --]

I prefer the hard fork because the complexity introduced by soft forks
scares me.

At
http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-September/011309.html
Gregory wrote: "Security requires a bit of vigilance, inherently." and
[A non-upgraded miner will end up] "*> producing invalid blocks forever
until** the owner shuts it down and upgrades. * This is the outcome
guaranteed for absentee miners with a hard fork, but it is not guaranteed
for a soft fork."

It seems that the main benefit of a soft-fork is that it allows
participants on the network to keep participating even if they aren't
vigilant enough to notice and upgrade when that is safest.  Are there other
reasons that might entice me if that one by itself is not enough?

Gregory provided two more: [Using soft-forks] "radically lowers (in most of
our experience and
opinion) the cost of deployment; again-- making them different. They
prevent a industry wide flag day, and tight release synchronization  which
is harmful to decentralization promoting software diversity."

I understand these benefits.  The cost in complexity is still too high for
me, and I think most of the pain in "cost of deployment", "industry-wide
flag days," and "tight release synchronization," as well as the
centralizing effect of those things can be minimized with waiting periods.
The promotion of software diversity offered by soft-forks is pretty cool,
but that gets close to messing with fungibility.
<http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-September/011309.html>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2029 bytes --]

  reply	other threads:[~2015-10-05 20:54 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 58+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-10-05 15:56 [bitcoin-dev] This thread is not about the soft/hard fork technical debate Sergio Demian Lerner
2015-10-05 16:39 ` NxtChg
2015-10-05 16:51 ` Luke Dashjr
2015-10-05 16:56 ` Mike Hearn
2015-10-05 17:01   ` Paul Sztorc
2015-10-05 17:33     ` Peter R
2015-10-05 17:56       ` NxtChg
2015-10-05 22:56       ` Btc Drak
2015-10-05 23:05         ` Milly Bitcoin
2015-10-05 17:35   ` Btc Drak
2015-10-06 18:23   ` Venzen Khaosan
2015-10-06 18:28     ` Venzen Khaosan
2015-10-06 19:34       ` naama.kates
2015-10-05 17:03 ` Btc Drak
2015-10-05 17:26   ` Tom Zander
2015-10-05 17:52     ` Btc Drak
2015-10-05 18:04     ` Gregory Maxwell
2015-10-05 18:33       ` Tom Zander
2015-10-05 18:50         ` NotMike Hearn
2015-10-05 17:33 ` s7r
2015-10-05 18:51   ` Tom Zander
2015-10-05 18:35 ` Gregory Maxwell
2015-10-05 19:13   ` Tom Zander
2015-10-05 19:41     ` Gregory Maxwell
2015-10-05 20:05       ` Steven Pine
2015-10-05 20:21         ` Milly Bitcoin
2015-10-06  7:17           ` cipher anthem
2015-10-06  7:20             ` Eric Lombrozo
2015-10-06  7:29               ` Marcel Jamin
2015-10-06  8:34                 ` NotMike Hearn
2015-10-06 19:40                   ` naama.kates
2015-10-05 20:28         ` Santino Napolitano
2015-10-05 20:35       ` Tom Zander
2015-10-05 20:54         ` Dave Scotese [this message]
2015-10-05 20:56         ` Gregory Maxwell
2015-10-05 21:08           ` Tom Zander
2015-10-05 21:16             ` Milly Bitcoin
2015-10-05 21:26             ` Gregory Maxwell
2015-10-06  7:14               ` Tom Zander
2015-10-05 21:27             ` Peter R
2015-10-05 21:30               ` Gregory Maxwell
2015-10-05 21:36                 ` Milly Bitcoin
2015-10-05 21:37                 ` Peter R
2015-10-06  1:37           ` Tom Harding
2015-10-06  3:20             ` Peter R
2015-10-06  3:39               ` Milly Bitcoin
2015-10-06  4:54                 ` Luke Dashjr
2015-10-06  5:08                   ` Milly Bitcoin
2015-10-06  5:49                     ` Milly Bitcoin
2015-10-06  5:53                       ` Luke Dashjr
2015-10-06  6:03                         ` Milly Bitcoin
2015-10-06 22:14                       ` phm
2015-10-06  5:07               ` NotMike Hearn
2015-10-06  5:33                 ` Peter R
2015-10-05 19:36   ` Milly Bitcoin
2015-10-05 23:18 ` Eric Lombrozo
2015-10-06 17:28 ` Venzen Khaosan
2015-10-07  0:04   ` Sergio Demian Lerner

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to='CAGLBAhenb3D2FYZQFgGhyWT9JafwwVMzCow=tFbNfQdLJpdx0g@mail.gmail.com' \
    --to=dscotese@litmocracy.com \
    --cc=bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox