On Wednesday, March 13, 2013 6:27:13 PM Mark Friedenbach wrote: > Luke-Jr is suggesting that we add-to/modify the bitcoin protocol rules > which all verifying implementations must adhere to. I'm suggesting that we > instead change the old codebase to do what we expected it to do all along > (what 0.8 does and what every other verifying implementation does), and > through miner collusion buy ourselves enough time for people to update > their own installations.
Curiously enough, at least MtGox's custom implementation stuck with the canonical blockchain despite 0.8's accidental rule change. > I know there's people here who will jump in saying that the bitcoin > protocol is the behavior of the Satoshi client, period. But which Satoshi > client? 0.7 or 0.8? How do you resolve that without being arbitrary? And > regardless, we are moving very quickly towards a multi-client future. This > problem is very clearly a *bug* in the old codebase. So let's be forward > thinking and do what we would do in any other situation: fix the bug, > responsibly notify people and give them time to react, then move on. Let's > not codify the bug in the protocol. No, if any other client released diverged from the consensus of all past/existing clients, we would do the same thing: call it a formerly unknown protocol rule, that this new client has a bug implementing, and be done with it. The only reason this particular issue needs special treatment is because the implications of the new rule mean that we're up against a hard limit in the protocol today rather than 2 years from now. Luke ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Everyone hates slow websites. So do we. Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics Download AppDynamics Lite for free today: http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_mar _______________________________________________ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
