From: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail•com>
To: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd•org>
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Bitcoin core 0.11 planning
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2015 04:01:00 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAPg+sBjc4iguJ8KCnUf9LrLbPkWEMc5fvr7XZsA48XQKaecN5g@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4E63339A-69B1-4885-9D7F-6D14E75CE174@petertodd.org>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3864 bytes --]
As softforks almost certainly require backports to older releases and other
software anyway, I don't think they should necessarily be bound to Bitcoin
Core major releases. If they don't require large code changes, we can
easily do them in minor releases too.
On Apr 28, 2015 12:51 PM, "Peter Todd" <pete@petertodd•org> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256
>
> I'll point out that at this rate the soonest we'll see CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY
> implemented on Bitcoin will be something like summer 2016, a year and a
> half after it got adopted on Viacoin. (and a few other alts whose names I
> forget)
>
> Right now the shortest path to adoption would be to release a v0.12 with
> just a CLTV soft-fork as soon as the BIP66 softfork triggers. While there's
> been proposal to change the way the upgrade mechanism triggers to a
> multiple parallel fork scheme, that is quite complex, stateful, and will
> need lots of review, probably a few months worth; faster would be to
> continue with the existing mechanism.
>
> IMO the main reason to accelerate CLTV is scalability. The only viable
> scalability improvements possible in the short/medium term that don't
> entirely rely on trusting third parties are payment channel based. While we
> have a working payment channel scheme - Jeremy Spilman's refund tx based
> system - it is fairly complex, needs good and immediate backups, and is
> susceptible to tx malleability. CLTV fixes those issues robustly. Of
> course, payment channel schemes can start off with Spilman's scheme first
> and go to CLTV later, but that is a lot of extra code to be written and
> later depreciated - I'm sure many authors are dubious about going down that
> path.
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
> On 28 April 2015 03:44:16 GMT-04:00, "Wladimir J. van der Laan" <
> laanwj@gmail•com> wrote:
> >Hello all,
> >
> >The release window for 0.11 is nearing, I'd propose the following
> >schedule:
> >
> >2015-05-01 Soft translation string freeze
> > Open Transifex translations for 0.11
> > Finalize and close translation for 0.9
> >
> >2015-05-15 Feature freeze, string freeze
> >
> >2015-06-01 Split off 0.11 branch
> > Tag and release 0.11.0rc1
> > Start merging for 0.12 on master branch
> >
> >2015-07-01 Release 0.11.0 final (aim)
> >
> >In contrast to former releases, which were protracted for months, let's
> >try to be more strict about the dates. Of course it is always possible
> >for last-minute critical issues to interfere with the planning. The
> >release will not be held up for features, though, and anything that
> >will not make it to 0.11 will be postponed to next release scheduled
> >for end of the year.
> >
> >Wladimir
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> iQE9BAEBCAAnIBxQZXRlciBUb2RkIDxwZXRlQHBldGVydG9kZC5vcmc+BQJVP2Wy
> AAoJEMCF8hzn9LncqOcH/3rDFbgWprqTfk8dKWAItRcY6ZyiQ+dNrqNgymaNP5Ig
> MNKaTmWYyZRH6PW13JOv72ArXia+D82Mp5reTaLIb3TV5uef2biruOCaH9eI8Uv5
> i2PCBLw3uqZIZZ5Qr/7nlp2CaBQIGDK3fg3jx10UyWpg4BxkKP2mLJibMG8l3JcK
> Moi/kh6lvwySpT8NYtZfXax+5AQ2oLXiSzbFF8P0ioI9fJYaoVCAyS5VEE4KsZnV
> thOaoPAWoK+spEYKFrjvyXnQXFe6m+KPfRPU3WKYSFhI7m8MW6bKxEnD0Lffo6qU
> YS6jsE3A0LoKs4kD73ivHcMeXDhO6LXyPAu8zQtgGr8=
> =Z/GT
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> One dashboard for servers and applications across Physical-Virtual-Cloud
> Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications
> Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable Insights
> Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing using APM Insight.
> http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4675 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-04-28 11:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-04-28 7:44 Wladimir J. van der Laan
2015-04-28 10:49 ` Peter Todd
2015-04-28 11:01 ` Pieter Wuille [this message]
2015-04-28 13:42 ` Peter Todd
[not found] ` <CA+s+GJBeZkWSKn4igC1ksynoQLfUpUtHBesq9MPi6yRqZZr4Gw@mail.gmail.com>
2015-05-11 14:49 ` [Bitcoin-development] Fwd: " Wladimir
2015-05-11 15:00 ` [Bitcoin-development] " Wladimir
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=CAPg+sBjc4iguJ8KCnUf9LrLbPkWEMc5fvr7XZsA48XQKaecN5g@mail.gmail.com \
--to=pieter.wuille@gmail$(echo .)com \
--cc=bitcoin-development@lists$(echo .)sourceforge.net \
--cc=pete@petertodd$(echo .)org \
/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