Jorge Tim贸n [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 馃搮 Original date posted:2021-05-22 馃摑 Original message:Hardforks can be useful ...
馃搮 Original date posted:2021-05-22
馃摑 Original message:Hardforks can be useful too.
But, yes, I agree softforks are preferable whenever possible.
On Sat, May 22, 2021, 20:55 Raystonn . <raystonn at hotmail.com> wrote:
> None of these required a hard fork. I should rephrase my previous email
> to clarify the intended topic as hard consensus changes, requiring a hard
> fork. "Soft" forks can be useful.
>
> Raystonn
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Jorge Tim贸n <jtimon at jtimon.cc>
> *Sent:* Saturday, May 22, 2021 7:55 AM
> *To:* Raystonn . <raystonn at hotmail.com>; Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [bitcoin-dev] Consensus protocol immutability is a feature
>
> That is clearly not true. People entretain making changes to the protocol
> all the time. Bitcoin is far from perfect and not improving it would be
> stupid in my opinion.
> Some improvements require changes to the consensus rules.
> Recent changes include relative lock time verify or segwit. These are
> important changes that made things like lightning much easier and efficient
> than they could possibly be without them.
> Taproot, which is a recent proposal, could help simplify the lightning
> protocol even further, and make it more efficient and its usage more
> private. And there are more use cases.
>
> There have been consensus rule changes since bitcoin started, and with
> good reason. As a user, you can always oppose new changes. And if enough
> users agree with you, you will be able to maintain your own chain with the
> old rules. At the same time, there's nothing you can do to stop other users
> who want those changes from coordinating with each other to adopt them.
>
> Perhaps you're interested in bip99, which discusses consensus rule changes
> in more detail.
>
>
>
> On Sat, May 22, 2021, 13:09 Raystonn . via bitcoin-dev <
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> Suggestions to make changes to Bitcoin's consensus protocol will only ever
> be entertained if Bitcoin is completely dead without such a change. Any
> attempt to change consensus protocol without a clear and convincing
> demonstration to the entire network of participants that Bitcoin will die
> without that change is a waste of your own time. Bitcoin's resistance to
> consensus changes is a feature that makes it resistant to being coopted and
> corrupted. I recommend developers focus on making improvements that do not
> attempt to change the consensus protocol. Otherwise, you are simply
> working on an altcoin, which is off-topic here.
>
> Raystonn
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20210522/1aad77a4/attachment.html>;
馃摑 Original message:Hardforks can be useful too.
But, yes, I agree softforks are preferable whenever possible.
On Sat, May 22, 2021, 20:55 Raystonn . <raystonn at hotmail.com> wrote:
> None of these required a hard fork. I should rephrase my previous email
> to clarify the intended topic as hard consensus changes, requiring a hard
> fork. "Soft" forks can be useful.
>
> Raystonn
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Jorge Tim贸n <jtimon at jtimon.cc>
> *Sent:* Saturday, May 22, 2021 7:55 AM
> *To:* Raystonn . <raystonn at hotmail.com>; Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [bitcoin-dev] Consensus protocol immutability is a feature
>
> That is clearly not true. People entretain making changes to the protocol
> all the time. Bitcoin is far from perfect and not improving it would be
> stupid in my opinion.
> Some improvements require changes to the consensus rules.
> Recent changes include relative lock time verify or segwit. These are
> important changes that made things like lightning much easier and efficient
> than they could possibly be without them.
> Taproot, which is a recent proposal, could help simplify the lightning
> protocol even further, and make it more efficient and its usage more
> private. And there are more use cases.
>
> There have been consensus rule changes since bitcoin started, and with
> good reason. As a user, you can always oppose new changes. And if enough
> users agree with you, you will be able to maintain your own chain with the
> old rules. At the same time, there's nothing you can do to stop other users
> who want those changes from coordinating with each other to adopt them.
>
> Perhaps you're interested in bip99, which discusses consensus rule changes
> in more detail.
>
>
>
> On Sat, May 22, 2021, 13:09 Raystonn . via bitcoin-dev <
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> Suggestions to make changes to Bitcoin's consensus protocol will only ever
> be entertained if Bitcoin is completely dead without such a change. Any
> attempt to change consensus protocol without a clear and convincing
> demonstration to the entire network of participants that Bitcoin will die
> without that change is a waste of your own time. Bitcoin's resistance to
> consensus changes is a feature that makes it resistant to being coopted and
> corrupted. I recommend developers focus on making improvements that do not
> attempt to change the consensus protocol. Otherwise, you are simply
> working on an altcoin, which is off-topic here.
>
> Raystonn
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20210522/1aad77a4/attachment.html>;