{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1azvhdrf9fu6n0tm7yez4j6zcxcedp2ct6nrcq3z74naqs7kgpk8s5t2krq","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1azvhdrf9fu6n0tm7yez4j6zcxcedp2ct6nrcq3z74naqs7kgpk8s5t2krq","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2015-09-28\n📝 Original message:My initial reaction is just HUH?!?!? Is this some sophisticated form of humor I'm just not getting?\n\nOn September 28, 2015 3:48:57 AM PDT, Mike Hearn via bitcoin-dev \u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003eThere is *no* consensus on using a soft fork to deploy this feature. It\n\u003ewill result in the same problems as all the other soft forks - SPV\n\u003ewallets\n\u003ewill become less reliable during the rollout period. I am against that,\n\u003eas\n\u003eit's entirely avoidable.\n\u003e\n\u003eMake it a hard fork and my objection will be dropped.\n\u003e\n\u003eUntil then, as there is no consensus, you need to do one of two things:\n\u003e\n\u003e1) Drop the \"everyone must agree to make changes\" idea that people here\n\u003elike to peddle, and do it loudly, so everyone in the community is\n\u003ecorrectly\n\u003einformed\n\u003e\n\u003e2) Do nothing\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\u003e\n\u003e_______________________________________________\n\u003ebitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003ebitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003ehttps://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\n-- \nSent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150928/0eabc6d7/attachment.html\u003e"}