From: Mike Hearn <hearn@vinumeris•com>
To: Sergio Demian Lerner <sergio.d.lerner@gmail•com>
Cc: 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 18:56:38 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CA+w+GKSNa3TWgHXrp3=3gXdAbE6vVjW_uzus3_2YG9gzKJSskg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAKzdR-rPoByn=+CgsTc1ZnLkjwtYyJnbQLbn-VHOvz0dLciefQ@mail.gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1481 bytes --]
Hey Sergio,
To clarify: my *single* objection is that CLTV should be a hard fork. I
haven't been raising never-ending technical objections, there's only one.
I *have* been answering all the various reasons being brought up why I'm
wrong and soft forks are awesome .... and there do seem to be a limitless
number of such emails .... but on my side it's still just a single
objection. If CLTV is a hard fork then I won't be objecting anymore, right?
CLTV deployment is clearly controversial. Many developers other than me
have noted that hard forks are cleaner, and have other desirable
properties. I'm not the only one who sees a big question mark over soft
forks.
As everyone in the Bitcoin community has been clearly told that
controversial changes to the consensus rules must not happen, it's clear
that CLTV cannot happen in its current form.
Now I'll be frank - you are quite correct that I fully expect the Core
maintainers to ignore this controversy and do CLTV as a soft fork anyway.
I'm a cynic. I don't think "everyone must agree" is workable and have said
so from the start. Faced with a choice of going back on their public
statements or having to make changes to something they clearly want, I
expect them to redefine what "real consensus" means. I hope I'm wrong, but
if I'm not ..... well, at least everyone will see what Gavin and I have
been talking about for so many months.
But I'd rather the opcode is tweaked. There's real financial risks to a
soft fork.
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1745 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-10-05 16:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 58+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-10-05 15:56 Sergio Demian Lerner
2015-10-05 16:39 ` NxtChg
2015-10-05 16:51 ` Luke Dashjr
2015-10-05 16:56 ` Mike Hearn [this message]
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
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='CA+w+GKSNa3TWgHXrp3=3gXdAbE6vVjW_uzus3_2YG9gzKJSskg@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=hearn@vinumeris$(echo .)com \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=sergio.d.lerner@gmail$(echo .)com \
/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