{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1lhe3qfx2q5m7mq5d39waepf9lzhsy0cdey66svn63fyk6rt6n7ps7zg7ed","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1lhe3qfx2q5m7mq5d39waepf9lzhsy0cdey66svn63fyk6rt6n7ps7zg7ed","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2015-09-28\n📝 Original message:On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 12:40 PM, Mike Hearn via bitcoin-dev \u003c\nbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\n\u003e There is no consensus. Now pick. Lose the requirement that everyone agree\n\u003e for consensus changes, and tell people you've done it. Change the spec. Or\n\u003e do nothing.\n\u003e\n\nOf course there is good technical consensus for CLTV by IsSuperMajority()\nin the same way as BIP66 was rolled out. I believe the only open question\nis whether we have to account for XT's use of versionbits (because the\nstandard has not been finalised). One can take the view that it is a non\nissue given the almost negligible number of BIP101 blocks, but it certainly\ngoes away if XT also merges BIP65/CLTV.\n\nAs for risks, I think we learned a lot from BIP66:\n\n1. miners are now aware of the risks of SPV mining near activation and are\nfinancially incentivised not to during that period.\n2. As for SPV wallets need to handle awareness of the new blocks. BitcoinJ\ncan play a pivotal role: as far as I am aware if we'd thought about adding\nhandling to BitcoinJ before activation rather than after activation[1][2],\nthe SPV issues would have been mitigated for the vast majority who rely on\nthe library. To me, this particular issue highlights our collective failure\nto communicate the necessity for additional SPV handling requirements and\nother preparation the ecosystem should engage in during a soft fork. This\nis something we should definitely add to the release notes for the next\nsoft fork and advertise widely. Certainly it MUST be well documented in the\nBIP65 deployment section, which it is currently not.\n\nLastly your objections came across very strongly (at least to my\nunderstanding) so I am curious: Peter stated Gavin is OK with adding CLTV\nsupport to XT, and assuming that is the case, will you object to merging it\nor similarly object to adding the necessary block handling to BitcoinJ?\n\n[1]\nhttps://github.com/bitcoinj/bitcoinj/commit/6f03669fbd6c368961a25dfd772751d1ca2a1b5b\n[2]\nhttps://github.com/bitcoinj/bitcoinj/commit/d3d11df6d71ff11cef2dc0caa8263daa641fe118\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150928/2d9c5e1d/attachment.html\u003e"}