Peter Todd [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: š Original date posted:2015-09-27 š Original message:On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at ...
š
Original date posted:2015-09-27
š Original message:On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 04:26:12PM -0400, jl2012 at xbt.hk wrote:
> +1 for deploying BIP65 immediately without further waiting. Agree
> with all Peter's points.
Thanks!
> By the way, is there any chance to backport it to 0.9? In the
> deployment of BIP66 some miners requested a backport to 0.9 and
> that's why we have 0.9.5.
I certainly could, though there's good reasons to move to v0.10.x; I'd
want to first hear from miners as to why they're still on v0.9.x
--
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
00000000000000000f8ed62397b82b10e56b9aea309fb18c37985d1405808c4f
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 650 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150927/c633be3b/attachment.sig>;
š Original message:On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 04:26:12PM -0400, jl2012 at xbt.hk wrote:
> +1 for deploying BIP65 immediately without further waiting. Agree
> with all Peter's points.
Thanks!
> By the way, is there any chance to backport it to 0.9? In the
> deployment of BIP66 some miners requested a backport to 0.9 and
> that's why we have 0.9.5.
I certainly could, though there's good reasons to move to v0.10.x; I'd
want to first hear from miners as to why they're still on v0.9.x
--
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
00000000000000000f8ed62397b82b10e56b9aea309fb18c37985d1405808c4f
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 650 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150927/c633be3b/attachment.sig>;