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 A42741EAE for ; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 05:10:05 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-pa0-f53.google.com (mail-pa0-f53.google.com [209.85.220.53]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4B8F92F for ; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 05:10:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: by pablk4 with SMTP id lk4so27841459pab.3 for ; Tue, 29 Sep 2015 22:10:05 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=from:to:subject:cc:date:message-id:in-reply-to:reply-to:user-agent :mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Sr3cLtPodAy9brAiQk1EThr9bR6xjfJzvrnyXxMlYwo=; b=MibFVHs9wR+bgYtTT4Sg+jtfYsQhYWgaLvk71OgeQ5p3k9+r0vKpwZSwzPDLlZ8wJu STDfsnjcMfftRV0J0u4ccXZee/6TTtkZzb6R+Xn39y60j64jSBQsEt95dKzU9dS/xG90 +lZVTPYidnunM4Y2HeqfB/UQ7jKZWj2zjQGEZPp3uzSUy1Nb4/WEqElZLfOHA8I4bcBg f9NH7IPoJ3wioyYcDPxUiztbMIkj7OrNZKPcie3PlXB30+LNMRZAYutMVTpLsMGgdf1G s5ZN737uD8UpLM/MqCBlR7oanPNE14fCPI68zcrwGVYYXf3s9jK9go3d/rOxF4LuHuj6 wIQA== X-Received: by 10.66.138.11 with SMTP id qm11mr2434535pab.126.1443589805073; Tue, 29 Sep 2015 22:10:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.108] (cpe-76-167-237-202.san.res.rr.com. [76.167.237.202]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id tb9sm28923363pab.13.2015.09.29.22.10.03 (version=TLS1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 29 Sep 2015 22:10:04 -0700 (PDT) From: "Eric Lombrozo" To: "Gregory Maxwell" , "Rusty Russell" Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 05:09:51 +0000 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: Reply-To: "Eric Lombrozo" User-Agent: eM_Client/6.0.23181.0 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, 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 , Pieter Wuille Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Versionbits BIP (009) minor revision proposal. 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: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 05:10:05 -0000 >While I would like to get some form of explicit acknowledgment from=20 >miners that a new rule is in effect, the truth of the matter is we=20 >still lack a means to determine whether or not miners are actually=20 >enforcing these rules...unless someone happens to mine a block that=20 >breaks the new rule. This is a bit frustrating...but that's just how it= =20 >is. > I should add that hard forks do provide us with a means to determine=20 whether or not miners are enforcing the new rules...but generally=20 speaking they risk far greater disruption if anything fails to go as=20 planned. Between the risk of clients accepting an occasional invalid=20 "confirmation" or two and the risk of a total network partition, the=20 former seems far less serious. I believe the concerns regarding old=20 clients can be remedied to a very large extent by means of a good=20 awareness campaign. - Eric