From: Marcel Jamin <marcel@jamin•net>
To: "Wladimir J. van der Laan" <laanwj@gmail•com>
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 12:34:38 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAAUq487e96agsBmHSThfLQyU+sMSiCwxPEdtZU1_xbsqVWyvrw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20151001101544.GA10901@amethyst.visucore.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1791 bytes --]
2015-10-01 12:15 GMT+02:00 Wladimir J. van der Laan <laanwj@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.
>
As I understand it, right now the bitcoin protocol is defined by the
bitcoin core implementation. Or is there anything else to point to? So I'd
say my point still stands.
Other implementations copy what bitcoin core does.
> > Then you could start using the version as a signaling mechanism.
>
> We certainly could, it is a decision to not to.
>
Simply because of the "1.0.0" issue or for other reasons as well?
> 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
> > >
>
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2974 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-10-01 10:34 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
2015-10-01 10:34 ` Marcel Jamin [this message]
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=CAAUq487e96agsBmHSThfLQyU+sMSiCwxPEdtZU1_xbsqVWyvrw@mail.gmail.com \
--to=marcel@jamin$(echo .)net \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=laanwj@gmail$(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