Gavin Andresen [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: š Original date posted:2014-10-07 š Original message:On Sat, Oct 4, 2014 at ...
š
Original date posted:2014-10-07
š Original message:On Sat, Oct 4, 2014 at 8:58 AM, Mike Hearn <mike at plan99.net> wrote:
>
>> Meanwhile, what I said *is* correct. New version numbers result in only
> a log print. Being hard forked off results in both log prints *and* the
> -alertnotify being run:
>
That is easy to change; I'll submit a pull request. It is a good idea to
get an -alertnotify sooner rather than later for EITHER a hard fork or a
soft-fork. Better to be told you have to upgrade while the block.version is
on its way to being a super-majority than after you are either hard-forked
off the main chain (or soft-forked).
I don't have any opinion on the hard- versus soft- fork debate. I think
either can work.
--
--
Gavin Andresen
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20141007/788fa260/attachment.html>;
š Original message:On Sat, Oct 4, 2014 at 8:58 AM, Mike Hearn <mike at plan99.net> wrote:
>
>> Meanwhile, what I said *is* correct. New version numbers result in only
> a log print. Being hard forked off results in both log prints *and* the
> -alertnotify being run:
>
That is easy to change; I'll submit a pull request. It is a good idea to
get an -alertnotify sooner rather than later for EITHER a hard fork or a
soft-fork. Better to be told you have to upgrade while the block.version is
on its way to being a super-majority than after you are either hard-forked
off the main chain (or soft-forked).
I don't have any opinion on the hard- versus soft- fork debate. I think
either can work.
--
--
Gavin Andresen
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20141007/788fa260/attachment.html>;