rich1.0npub1ac86vemj7ce5z8jyxt39rna3tvwql6xd30ha3vxcd6esysp23d9qrlswfjhttps://nostr.ae/npub1ac86vemj7ce5z8jyxt39rna3tvwql6xd30ha3vxcd6esysp23d9qrlswfjnjumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2015-09-28 📝 Original message:I wonder what Gavin's views are, he's usually constructive, and see if he'll include it in XT - I think he may have said he was supportive. The rationale for soft vs hard-forks is well known, so I wont go over them. Adam On 28 September 2015 at 06:48, 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >