> Mostly because we don't use the numbers as a signaling mechanism. They just count up, every half year.

OK, but then it's not semantic versioning (as btcdrak claims).

> Otherwise, one'd have to ask hard questions like 'is the software mature enough to be called 1.0.0'

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.

Then you could start using the version as a signaling mechanism.

> We're horribly stressed-out as is.

Yeah, probably not a very important topic right now.

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