From: "Wladimir J. van der Laan" <laanwj@gmail•com>
To: Marcel Jamin <marcel@jamin•net>
Cc: Bitcoin development mailing list <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Fwd: Bitcoin Core 0.12.0 release schedule
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2015 12:15:45 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20151001101544.GA10901@amethyst.visucore.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAAUq486EXSJ1ri-3nWMt9vWhoajLp+LkWTV_-ZvU_FE+qfqcpA@mail.gmail.com>
On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 12:10:45PM +0200, Marcel Jamin wrote:
> I think the question has already been answered for you by the companies
> that build on top of it, the investments being made and the $3.5 billion
> market cap. The 1.0.0 tag is probably long overdue.
May I remind you that by far, most of that investment is not in the Bitcoin Core software.
It is made to things building on top of the network/protocol, under the assumption that nothing really stupid will happen and the network will not go down etc.
This implies a level of trust in the node software to maintain consensus, but doesn't necessarily mean that all rough corners have been dealt with regarding implementation.
(but this is exactly the kind of argument I'm trying to avoid getting pulled into)
> Then you could start using the version as a signaling mechanism.
We certainly could, it is a decision to not to.
> Yeah, probably not a very important topic right now.
Exactly.
Wladimir
>
>
>
> 2015-10-01 11:56 GMT+02:00 Wladimir J. van der Laan <laanwj@gmail•com>:
>
> > On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 11:41:25AM +0200, Marcel Jamin wrote:
> > > I guess the question then becomes why bitcoin still is <1.0.0
> >
> > I'll interpret the question as "why is the Bitcoin Core software still
> > <1.0.0". Bitcoin the currency doesn't have a version, the block/transaction
> > versions are at v3/v1 respectively, and the highest network protocol
> > version is 70011.
> >
> > Mostly because we don't use the numbers as a signaling mechanism. They
> > just count up, every half year.
> >
> > Otherwise, one'd have to ask hard questions like 'is the software mature
> > enough to be called 1.0.0', which would lead to long arguments, all of
> > which would eventually lead to nothing more than potentially increasing a
> > number. We're horribly stressed-out as is.
> >
> > Wladimir
> >
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-10-01 10:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-09-24 11:25 [bitcoin-dev] " Wladimir J. van der Laan
2015-09-29 21:22 ` Jeff Garzik
2015-09-30 17:57 ` Luke Dashjr
2015-09-30 18:10 ` Jorge Timón
2015-09-30 19:24 ` Jeff Garzik
2015-10-01 8:50 ` Wladimir J. van der Laan
2015-10-01 9:05 ` Marcel Jamin
2015-10-01 9:17 ` Btc Drak
[not found] ` <CAAUq484+g89yD+s7iR_mGWPM3TTN7V6-EPb1ig=P1BKfcbztPg@mail.gmail.com>
2015-10-01 9:41 ` [bitcoin-dev] Fwd: " Marcel Jamin
2015-10-01 9:56 ` Wladimir J. van der Laan
2015-10-01 10:10 ` Marcel Jamin
2015-10-01 10:15 ` Wladimir J. van der Laan [this message]
2015-10-01 10:34 ` Marcel Jamin
2015-10-01 10:50 ` Jeff Garzik
2015-10-01 20:20 ` Luke Dashjr
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=20151001101544.GA10901@amethyst.visucore.com \
--to=laanwj@gmail$(echo .)com \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=marcel@jamin$(echo .)net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
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