Re: [bitcoin-dev] Let's deploy BIP65 CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY!

2015-10-01 Thread GC via bitcoin-dev
Or, you know, enter some discussions on what exactly are the issues that SPV clients face during soft forks and see if anything can be done (on all sides) to mitigate the risks. Crazy stuff, I know Š ;-) From: NotMike Hearn via bitcoin-dev Reply-To: NotMike Hearn Date: Friday, 2 October 2015

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Let's deploy BIP65 CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY!

2015-10-01 Thread NotMike Hearn via bitcoin-dev
On 28 September 2015 at 06:48, Mike Hearn via bitcoin-dev 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 >

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Versionbits BIP (009) minor revision proposal.

2015-10-01 Thread Rusty Russell via bitcoin-dev
Rusty Russell via bitcoin-dev writes: > Gregory Maxwell writes: >> I can, however, argue it the other way (and probably have in the >> past): The bit is easily checked by thin clients, so thin clients >> could use it to reject potentially ill-fated blocks from non-upgraded >> miners post switch

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Crossing the line? [Was: Re: Let's deploy BIP65 CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY!]

2015-10-01 Thread Milly Bitcoin via bitcoin-dev
Given the current reddit hubbub, a bit of a cooling off period is IMO advisable before taking any further action. 2. If so, does the community feel that Mike Hearn has crossed it? (I personally feel he has. Multiple times.) I don't believe any posting by Mr. Hearn warrants any actions

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Fwd: Bitcoin Core 0.12.0 release schedule

2015-10-01 Thread Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev
On Thursday, October 01, 2015 9:41:25 AM Marcel Jamin via bitcoin-dev wrote: > I guess the question then becomes why bitcoin still is <1.0.0 > > I'd say it's safe to say that it's used in production. But it's not *ready* to be used in production. :( For 1.0, I would expect: libbitcoinconsensus:

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Crossing the line? [Was: Re: Let's deploy BIP65 CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY!]

2015-10-01 Thread Jeff Garzik via bitcoin-dev
To reduce the list noise level, drama level and promote inclusion, my own personal preference (list admin hat: off, community member hat: on) is for temporal bans based on temporal circumstances. Default to pro-forgiveness. Also, focus on disruption of the list as a metric, rather than focusing o

[bitcoin-dev] Crossing the line? [Was: Re: Let's deploy BIP65 CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY!]

2015-10-01 Thread Tao Effect via bitcoin-dev
Dear list, Mike has made a variety of false and damaging statements about Bitcoin, of which this is but one: > On Sep 30, 2015, at 2:01 PM, Mike Hearn via bitcoin-dev > wrote: > I coined the term SPV so I know exactly what it means, and bitcoinj > implements it, as does BreadWallet (the other

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Let's deploy BIP65 CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY!

2015-10-01 Thread Tom Harding via bitcoin-dev
On 9/30/2015 10:58 AM, Jorge Timón via bitcoin-dev wrote: > I don't think we need to wait for you to understand the advantages of > softforks to move forward with BIP65, just like we didn't need to wait > for every developer and user to understand BIP66 to deploy it. What a bad example. BIP66 de

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Fwd: Bitcoin Core 0.12.0 release schedule

2015-10-01 Thread Jeff Garzik via bitcoin-dev
On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 5:41 AM, Marcel Jamin via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > I guess the question then becomes why bitcoin still is <1.0.0 > I've said the same thing years ago. Originally the "1.0" was a target for whenever "client mode" as planned by Satoshi wa

[bitcoin-dev] Scheduling refactors (was Re: Bitcoin Core 0.12.0 release schedule)

2015-10-01 Thread Jeff Garzik via bitcoin-dev
On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 7:25 AM, Wladimir J. van der Laan via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > 2015-11-01 > --- > - Open Transifex translations for 0.12 > - Soft translation string freeze (no large or unnecessary changes) > - Finalize and close translation for

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Fwd: Bitcoin Core 0.12.0 release schedule

2015-10-01 Thread Marcel Jamin via bitcoin-dev
2015-10-01 12:15 GMT+02:00 Wladimir J. van der Laan : > On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 12:10:45PM +0200, Marcel Jamin wrote: > > I think the question has already been answered for you by the companies > > that build on top of it, the investments being made and the $3.5 billion > > market cap. The 1.0.0 t

Re: [bitcoin-dev] bitcoin-dev Digest, Vol 5, Issue 2

2015-10-01 Thread digitsu412 via bitcoin-dev
any large code changes will no >> longer go into 0.12, unless fixing critical bugs. >> >> I'm not keen on postponing 0.12 for such reasons - after the HK workshop >> I'm sure that it will take some development/testing/review before code >> makes it into anything. Apart from that th

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Fwd: Bitcoin Core 0.12.0 release schedule

2015-10-01 Thread Wladimir J. van der Laan via bitcoin-dev
On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 12:10:45PM +0200, Marcel Jamin wrote: > I think the question has already been answered for you by the companies > that build on top of it, the investments being made and the $3.5 billion > market cap. The 1.0.0 tag is probably long overdue. May I remind you that by far, mos

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Fwd: Bitcoin Core 0.12.0 release schedule

2015-10-01 Thread Marcel Jamin via bitcoin-dev
> Mostly because we don't use the numbers as a signaling mechanism. They just count up, every half year. OK, but then it's not semantic versioning (as btcdrak claims). > Otherwise, one'd have to ask hard questions like 'is the software mature enough to be called 1.0.0' I think the question has a

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Fwd: Bitcoin Core 0.12.0 release schedule

2015-10-01 Thread Wladimir J. van der Laan via bitcoin-dev
On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 11:41:25AM +0200, Marcel Jamin wrote: > I guess the question then becomes why bitcoin still is <1.0.0 I'll interpret the question as "why is the Bitcoin Core software still <1.0.0". Bitcoin the currency doesn't have a version, the block/transaction versions are at v3/v1 r

[bitcoin-dev] Fwd: Bitcoin Core 0.12.0 release schedule

2015-10-01 Thread Marcel Jamin via bitcoin-dev
-- Forwarded message -- From: Marcel Jamin Date: 2015-10-01 11:39 GMT+02:00 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin Core 0.12.0 release schedule To: Btc Drak I guess the question then becomes why bitcoin still is <1.0.0 I'd say it's safe to say that it's used in production. 2015-10

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin Core 0.12.0 release schedule

2015-10-01 Thread Btc Drak via bitcoin-dev
On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 10:05 AM, Marcel Jamin via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > Any particular reason bitcoin versioning doesn't follow the SemVer spec? > We do: a.b.c, the next major version is, 0.12.0, and maintenance releases are 0.12.1 etc. Release candidates a

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin Core 0.12.0 release schedule

2015-10-01 Thread Marcel Jamin via bitcoin-dev
Any particular reason bitcoin versioning doesn't follow the SemVer spec? 2015-10-01 10:50 GMT+02:00 Wladimir J. van der Laan via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>: > On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 05:57:42PM +, Luke Dashjr wrote: > > On Thursday, September 24, 2015 11:25:56 AM Wla

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin Core 0.12.0 release schedule

2015-10-01 Thread Wladimir J. van der Laan via bitcoin-dev
On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 05:57:42PM +, Luke Dashjr wrote: > On Thursday, September 24, 2015 11:25:56 AM Wladimir J. van der Laan via > bitcoin-dev wrote: > > 2015-12-01 > > --- > > - Feature freeze > > Where is "Consensus freeze"? Shouldn't this be put off until after the HK > worksho