{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1ffc8cszk5wq34nvq78qm7npmmc8wsxg4538k7sy604shwmmrsjgsk2qp3d","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1ffc8cszk5wq34nvq78qm7npmmc8wsxg4538k7sy604shwmmrsjgsk2qp3d","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2015-10-01\n📝 Original message:Or, you know, enter some discussions on what exactly are the issues that SPV\nclients face during soft forks and see if anything can be done (on all\nsides) to mitigate the risks.\n\nCrazy stuff, I know Š ;-)\n\nFrom:  NotMike Hearn via bitcoin-dev \u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e\nReply-To:  NotMike Hearn \u003cnot.mike.hearn at gmail.com\u003e\nDate:  Friday, 2 October 2015 9:57 am\nTo:  \u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e\nSubject:  Re: [bitcoin-dev] Let's deploy BIP65 CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY!\n\nOn 28 September 2015 at 06:48, Mike Hearn via bitcoin-dev\n\u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e There is no consensus on using a soft fork to deploy this feature. It will\n\u003e result in the same problems as all the other soft forks - SPV wallets will\n\u003e become less reliable during the rollout period. I am against that, as it's\n\u003e entirely avoidable.\n\u003e\n\u003e Make it a hard fork and my objection will be dropped.\n\u003e\n\u003e Until then, as there is no consensus, you need to do one of two things:\n\u003e\n\u003e 1) Drop the \"everyone must agree to make changes\" idea that people here like\n\u003e to peddle, and do it loudly, so everyone in the community is correctly\n\u003e informed\n\u003e\n\u003e 2) Do nothing\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\nI agree with Mike Hearn that there is no consensus on using a soft fork to\ndeploy this feature. Either everyone agrees that we should all agree on\nconsensus or else there is arbitrary disagreement. You cannot have it both\nways.\n\nIt is very important that we reach consensus on consensus or, if you will,\nmeta0consensus. I think we should Do nothing as that is clearly the choice\nthat we have taken re: blocksize. If we use one set of rules for that\ndecision we should use the same set of rules for all decisions and there is\nno middle ground.\n\nThank you.\n\n\u003e\n\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e\n\n_______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list\nbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\nhttps://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20151002/f95134ba/attachment-0001.html\u003e"}