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 3225C14BB for ; Tue, 6 Oct 2015 08:34:59 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-io0-f194.google.com (mail-io0-f194.google.com [209.85.223.194]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 616B01AA for ; Tue, 6 Oct 2015 08:34:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: by ioiz6 with SMTP id z6so20844570ioi.3 for ; Tue, 06 Oct 2015 01:34:57 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=V8dx0kgV6BgsCWZByLpR1w40ZvOS6+mESdvEjQEhr/s=; b=08oq7ILRxJtMzxUVN0CrTtPQrEUtt8936NiHRt9aIULZLX+X92nWRYOGfGQKMasTYc T9QP4s26IiEv3EhTx1vhtIYwkd3r8r0JZFcUPIEIGwvIcChW+D/Z16xck1m5gpmos8DP OtDb9lCK3JKkh4t4nivXdECbL+u5IWI9VZ5gO9UfLCk7yAQaQSToBK5EF5/9bf/bi+wx +OjNnL1ZzV2zKB2nS1S8QvPv/ubqSIZAginw85eNjXXG6OyetIpEXiVGUtJG8wvYjw3v bqlNcF3INFBcYH6AehYcI/ViIabAt+gHs2JI1tDmjXa0yNzL2cXsw/IbCxHWHp3OA2KI quLA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.107.137.162 with SMTP id t34mr39740751ioi.103.1444120497882; Tue, 06 Oct 2015 01:34:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.64.223.164 with HTTP; Tue, 6 Oct 2015 01:34:57 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2015 04:34:57 -0400 Message-ID: From: NotMike Hearn To: Marcel Jamin Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113eacda4a0dc605216b8154 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,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] This thread is not about the soft/hard fork technical debate 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: Tue, 06 Oct 2015 08:34:59 -0000 --001a113eacda4a0dc605216b8154 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 I think I can solve the debate and give everyone what they want. Some people want BIP65, others do not. We can roll out 65 in a clever way, such that Greg/PeterT can get it, but Mike and Peter R don't need to have it (both versions can run alongside each other). Even better, people can switch back and forth between versions as much as they like. How might this work? Well, paradoxically, we could do this by *imposing additional constraints* on transaction validation, such that transactions made a very specific certain way will always look valid to non-CLTVers, but for CLTVers they will not be valid unless the CLTV rules are followed. The obvious concern is that non-CLTV people might receive invalid payments. However, their software is already set up to request payments in a non-CLTV way, so, luckily, this is actually not a problem at all! SPV clients can elect to only connect to nodes which are non-CLTV. Problem solved! I am happy to have solved this problem for you all, and ended this discord harmoniously. If we all put our heads together, these words of founding father Aretha Franklin will ring true: "there's nothing we can't overcome". On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 3:29 AM, Marcel Jamin via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > This is childish and very disappointing to see. > > 2015-10-06 9:20 GMT+02:00 Eric Lombrozo via bitcoin-dev < > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>: > >> I prefer the term "clown". >> >> Can we please move on? >> >> ------ Original Message ------ >> From: "cipher anthem via bitcoin-dev" < >> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> >> To: milly@bitcoins.info >> Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org >> Sent: 10/6/2015 12:17:14 AM >> Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] This thread is not about the soft/hard fork >> technical debate >> >> Sent: Monday, October 05, 2015 at 8:21 PM >>>> From: "Milly Bitcoin via bitcoin-dev" < >>>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> >>>> To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org >>>> Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] This thread is not about the soft/hard fork >>>> technical debate >>>> On 10/5/2015 4:05 PM, Steven Pine via bitcoin-dev wrote: >>>> >>>>> It's pretty clear Mike has turned into concern troll and bully. >>>>> >>>> >>> "troll" and, even worse, "concern troll" are terms generally used by >>>> teenagers on places like Reddit to complain about someone who doesn't >>>> agree with them. >>>> >>> >>> They should substitute troll for cultist so they appear more >>> professional... >>> _______________________________________________ >>> bitcoin-dev mailing list >>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org >>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> bitcoin-dev mailing list >> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org >> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >> > > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > > --001a113eacda4a0dc605216b8154 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I think I can solve the debate and give everyone what they= want.

Some people want BIP65, others do not.

We can roll out= 65 in a clever way, such that Greg/PeterT can get it, but Mike and Peter R= don't need to have it (both versions can run alongside each other). Ev= en better, people can switch back and forth between versions as much as the= y like.

How might this work? Well, paradoxically, we could do this b= y *imposing additional constraints* on transaction validation, such that tr= ansactions made a very specific certain way will always look valid to non-C= LTVers, but for CLTVers they will not be valid unless the CLTV rules are fo= llowed. The obvious concern is that non-CLTV people might receive invalid p= ayments. However, their software is already set up to request payments in a= non-CLTV way, so, luckily, this is actually not a problem at all! SPV clie= nts can elect to only connect to nodes which are non-CLTV.

Problem solved!

I am happy to have solved this problem for you al= l, and ended this discord harmoniously. If we all put our heads together, t= hese words of founding father Aretha Franklin will ring true: "there&#= 39;s nothing we can't overcome".


On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 3:29 AM,= Marcel Jamin via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linux= foundation.org> wrote:
This is childish and very disappointing to see.

2015-10-06 9:20 GMT+02:00 Eric Lombrozo via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>:
<= blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px= #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">I prefer the term "clown".

Can we please move on?

------ Original Message ------
From: "cipher anthem via bitcoin-dev" <bitcoin-dev@lists.linux= foundation.org>
To: milly@bitcoins= .info
Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Sent: 10/6/2015 12:17:14 AM
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] This thread is not about the soft/hard fork tech= nical debate

=C2=A0Sent: Monday, October 05, 2015 at 8:21 PM
=C2=A0From: "Milly Bitcoin via bitcoin-dev" <bitcoin-dev@lists= .linuxfoundation.org>
=C2=A0To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
=C2=A0Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] This thread is not about the soft/hard for= k technical debate
=C2=A0On 10/5/2015 4:05 PM, Steven Pine via bitcoin-dev wrote:
=C2=A0It's pretty clear Mike has turned into concern troll and bully.

=C2=A0"troll" and, even worse, "concern troll" are term= s generally used by
=C2=A0teenagers on places like Reddit to complain about someone who doesn&#= 39;t
=C2=A0agree with them.

They should substitute troll for cultist so they appear more professional..= .
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
= bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail= man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
= bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail= man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev


_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.= linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail= man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev


--001a113eacda4a0dc605216b8154--