<unnamed>

Public Key

npub1z3pv699thu72ewq38lny6cj5dx0xq6ft6mwlckjfus5qta4rx0gs7s35aw

Profile Code

nprofile1qqspgskdzj4m709vhqgnlejdvf2xn8nqdy4adh0utfy7g2q9763n85gpz4mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujumn0wd68ytnwv46qz9rhwden5te0wfjkccte9ejxzmt4wvhxjmcpp4mhxue69uhkummn9ekx7mqny06c5

Publishing to

relay.nostr.net

relay.damus.io

nos.lol

Last Notes

2023-06-07 19:42:46 CEST

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2015-10-06
📝 Original message:Just read the proposal for the dual modes... Think it would be best... Protocol question? Do we discuss the algorithms here on this forum? Or...
Sorry again for my thick skull!
Nina K
Sent from my iPhone
> On Oct 6, 2015, at 1:34 AM, NotMike Hearn via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> I think I can solve the debate and give everyone what they want.
>
> Some people want BIP65, others do not.
>
> We can roll out 65 in a clever way, such that Greg/PeterT can get it, but Mike and Peter R don't need to have it (both versions can run alongside each other). Even better, people can switch back and forth between versions as much as they like.
>
> How might this work? Well, paradoxically, we could do this by *imposing additional constraints* on transaction validation, such that transactions made a very specific certain way will always look valid to non-CLTVers, but for CLTVers they will not be valid unless the CLTV rules are followed. The obvious concern is that non-CLTV people might receive invalid payments. However, their software is already set up to request payments in a non-CLTV way, so, luckily, this is actually not a problem at all! SPV clients can elect to only connect to nodes which are non-CLTV.
>
> Problem solved!
>
> I am happy to have solved this problem for you all, and ended this discord harmoniously. If we all put our heads together, these words of founding father Aretha Franklin will ring true: "there's nothing we can't overcome".
>
>
>> On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 3:29 AM, Marcel Jamin via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>> This is childish and very disappointing to see.
>>
>> 2015-10-06 9:20 GMT+02:00 Eric Lombrozo via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>:
>>> I prefer the term "clown".
>>>
>>> Can we please move on?
>>>
>>> ------ Original Message ------
>>> From: "cipher anthem via bitcoin-dev" <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>
>>> To: milly at bitcoins.info
>>> Cc: bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>>> Sent: 10/6/2015 12:17:14 AM
>>> Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] This thread is not about the soft/hard fork technical debate
>>>
>>>>> Sent: Monday, October 05, 2015 at 8:21 PM
>>>>> From: "Milly Bitcoin via bitcoin-dev" <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>
>>>>> To: bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>>>>> Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] This thread is not about the soft/hard fork technical debate
>>>>>> On 10/5/2015 4:05 PM, Steven Pine via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>>>>>> It's pretty clear Mike has turned into concern troll and bully.
>>>>
>>>>> "troll" and, even worse, "concern troll" are terms generally used by
>>>>> teenagers on places like Reddit to complain about someone who doesn't
>>>>> agree with them.
>>>>
>>>> They should substitute troll for cultist so they appear more professional...
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>>>> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>>>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>>> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20151006/a9d956f7/attachment-0001.html>

2023-06-07 19:42:40 CEST

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2015-10-06
📝 Original message:Hey all, nice to meet you... I'm new to the community and thus, after taking that first step of signing up, have been reading/scanning these threads over the last few days without contributing my own two ¢-- not, um, 'trolling', just, you know, educating myself and getting familiar with the group ethos and etiquette.
It wasn't until I'd read ~10 posts that I understood the initial purpose of the thread! As few others have mentioned, I'm a bit surprised, at all the back and forth à la hip-hop 'battling' ;-) It certainly obfuscates-- while entertaining-- to the point where a newbie like myself might drop out... Perhaps this is intentional-- to maintain exclusivity and weed out the uninitiated. I dunno. But if not, I'm just noting, as something of an outsider, that it took a while.
But I'd like to contribute. With what little knowledge I possess, I'm inclined to favor hardfork... Is there a more suitable place to address this? Perhaps to work on code? For this specific project, that is... Anyone point me to a map somewhere? LOL.
Thanks to all for reading, and much admiration to you all and the work you've done, my latter comments notwithstanding!
Cheers,
N
> On Oct 6, 2015, at 11:28 AM, Venzen Khaosan via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> That's for Mike Hearn. Sooner the better. Hong Kong, December?
> Venzen Khaosan
>
>
>> On 10/07/2015 01:23 AM, Venzen Khaosan via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>> Tell you what, eloquent guy...
>>
>> Give me 15 minutes in a public open mic session with you and i'll
>> remove you from your high horse and close your voice in Bitcoin,
>> for good.
>>
>> Guaranteed. You're too stupid for me to let you run loose with
>> client funds and this great innovation.
>>
>> Anytime, anywhere. I'm ready to dismantle your intellectual
>> bankruptcy in front of the world.
>>
>> I'll go for your psychological throat first.
>>
>> Sincerely, Venzen Khaosan.
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 10/05/2015 11:56 PM, Mike Hearn via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>>> Hey Sergio,
>>
>>> To clarify: my /single/ objection is that CLTV should be a hard
>>> fork. I haven't been raising never-ending technical objections,
>>> there's only one.
>>
>>> I /have/ been answering all the various reasons being brought up
>>> why I'm wrong and soft forks are awesome .... and there do seem
>>> to be a limitless number of such emails .... but on my side it's
>>> still just a single objection. If CLTV is a hard fork then I
>>> won't be objecting anymore, right?
>>
>>> CLTV deployment is clearly controversial. Many developers other
>>> than me have noted that hard forks are cleaner, and have other
>>> desirable properties. I'm not the only one who sees a big
>>> question mark over soft forks.
>>
>>> As everyone in the Bitcoin community has been clearly told that
>>> controversial changes to the consensus rules must not happen,
>>> it's clear that CLTV cannot happen in its current form.
>>
>>> Now I'll be frank - you are quite correct that I fully expect
>>> the Core maintainers to ignore this controversy and do CLTV as a
>>> soft fork anyway. I'm a cynic. I don't think "everyone must
>>> agree" is workable and have said so from the start. Faced with a
>>> choice of going back on their public statements or having to make
>>> changes to something they clearly want, I expect them to redefine
>>> what "real consensus" means. I hope I'm wrong, but if I'm not
>>> ..... well, at least everyone will see what Gavin and I have been
>>> talking about for so many months.
>>
>>> But I'd rather the opcode is tweaked. There's real financial
>>> risks to a soft fork.
>>
>>
>>> _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev
>>> mailing list bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>
>> _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing
>> list bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJWFBLWAAoJEGwAhlQc8H1mRM8H/0p2sz0gtu62bB+NrllRgU20
> C4imzMr904X7JicqDsGhtySGdyk8DuHBSK4k1A3pOgPb+DoNQhcOUfZ2ZTNgR2tT
> yjJHrJP2X+g8YixyQiQNBf65bogTgeBGEizh/H33RSGzdHwoIfeVS5Qja/AMUnk1
> 4XO8d+t5OdtYdKANmR/uUZikrnOXd6KIt9rmJhYUjqmLWXbHzQkhES0mFvJ1BdVZ
> ZHNjnWzoE74NAEmPqhhhtU/GCFKQhBq7HHAnqkMoeWk0mgJoGCc+b/4/PwchmUJq
> CmVO2TJFrnHb4tYAFgw14tdbSe5ERYT0pHW4qM3gJlYL1ik03k0iQDZZ0eStaXM=
> =bwvw
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev