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
> >