From: Btc Drak <btcdrak@gmail•com>
To: "Jorge Timón" <jtimon@jtimon•cc>
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>,
Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail•com>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] CLTV/CSV/etc. deployment considerations due to XT/Not-BitcoinXT miners
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2015 11:20:17 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CADJgMztmgUzy70sJ+_Xj-OFe-kvEi6eSAYoGTb4yg-yGQ9u1dw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CABm2gDpBLKxKbHyWocOuyfO1VZ45yM7U1t+zVL_13LP9veXmcA@mail.gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1418 bytes --]
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 10:34 AM, Jorge Timón <
bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Seems like 3 is something we want to do no matter what and therefore
> is the "most future-proof" solution.
> I wonder if I can help with that (and I know there's more people that
> would be interested).
> Where's the current "non-full" nVersion bits implementation?
> Why implement a "non-full" version instead of going with the full
> implementation directly?
There is a simple answer to this, convenience: versionbits has not been
implemented yet, and I believe the BIP is still in review stage. As it
seems likely the remaining locktime pull requests will be ready by or
before the next major release, we need a deployment method if versionbits
is not ready (which is unlikely because no-one appears to be working on it
at the moment). Pieter indicated he is OK with another IsSuperMajority()
rollout in the interim. Personally, I dont think we should let perfection
be the enemy of progress here because at the end of the day, the deployment
method is less important than the actual featureset being proposed.
That said, the features in the next soft fork proposal are all related and
best deployed as one featureset softfork, but moving forward, versionbits
seems essential to be able to roll out multiple features in parallel
without waiting for activation and enforcement each time.
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1872 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-08-19 10:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-08-19 5:50 Peter Todd
2015-08-19 6:10 ` Mark Friedenbach
2015-08-19 9:34 ` Jorge Timón
2015-08-19 10:20 ` Btc Drak [this message]
2015-08-19 10:31 ` Jorge Timón
2015-08-19 13:15 ` Btc Drak
2015-08-19 13:24 ` Tier Nolan
2015-08-19 17:25 ` Btc Drak
2015-08-19 18:17 ` Tier Nolan
2015-08-19 12:36 ` Matt Corallo
2015-08-19 13:22 ` Tier Nolan
2015-08-19 14:01 ` Jeff Garzik
2015-08-19 16:32 ` Mark Friedenbach
2015-08-19 21:03 ` Peter Todd
2015-08-20 17:32 ` jl2012
2015-08-20 17:42 ` Mark Friedenbach
2015-08-27 22:11 ` Btc Drak
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2015-08-18 1:22 [bitcoin-dev] BIP: Using Median time-past as endpoint for locktime calculations Thomas Kerin
2015-08-19 1:04 ` Peter Todd
2015-08-19 1:08 ` Mark Friedenbach
2015-08-21 11:13 ` Thomas Kerin
2015-08-22 0:57 ` Peter Todd
2015-08-27 22:08 ` Btc Drak
2015-08-27 23:19 ` Peter Todd
2015-08-28 15:27 ` jl2012
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=CADJgMztmgUzy70sJ+_Xj-OFe-kvEi6eSAYoGTb4yg-yGQ9u1dw@mail.gmail.com \
--to=btcdrak@gmail$(echo .)com \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=jtimon@jtimon$(echo .)cc \
--cc=pieter.wuille@gmail$(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