rich1.0npub1s4lj77xuzcu7wy04afcr487f0r3za0f8n2775xrpkld2sv639mjqsd44kwhttps://nostr.ae/npub1s4lj77xuzcu7wy04afcr487f0r3za0f8n2775xrpkld2sv639mjqsd44kwnjumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2015-09-28 📝 Original message:I think three things need to happen: 1) Stop pretending that "everyone must agree to make consensus rule changes." "Rough consensus" is what we've always gone with, and is good enough. 2) Mr. Todd (or somebody) needs to write up a risk/benefit security tradeoff analysis doo-hickey document and publish it. I'm reasonably confident that the risks to SPV nodes can be mitigated (e.g. by deploying mempool-only first, before the soft fork rolls out), but as somebody who has only been moderately paying attention, BETTER COMMUNICATION is needed. What should SPV wallet authors be doing right now, if anything? Once the soft fork starts to roll out or activates, what do miners need to be aware of? SPV wallet authors? 3) I agree CLTV is ready to roll out, that there is rough consensus a soft fork is a reasonable way to do it, and that it should happen ASAP. On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 6:48 AM, Mike Hearn via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > There is *no* consensus on using a soft fork to deploy this feature. It > will result in the same problems as all the other soft forks - SPV wallets > will become less reliable during the rollout period. I am against that, as > it's entirely avoidable. > > Make it a hard fork and my objection will be dropped. > > Until then, as there is no consensus, you need to do one of two things: > > 1) Drop the "everyone must agree to make changes" idea that people here > like to peddle, and do it loudly, so everyone in the community is correctly > informed > > 2) Do nothing > > -- -- Gavin Andresen -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150928/066eb127/attachment.html>