Mark Friedenbach [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: đ Original date posted:2015-07-18 đ Original message: On Sat, Jul 18, 2015 at ...
đ
Original date posted:2015-07-18
đ Original message:
On Sat, Jul 18, 2015 at 9:19 AM, Nick ODell <nickodell at gmail.com> wrote:
> There doesn't seem to be any deployment timeline.
>
Welcome to bitcoin development.
At the moment we have only the capability to push out one soft fork vote at
a time. The uncontroversial aspects of BIP62 were rushed out as BIP66 in
response to an undisclosed vulnerability, as mentioned. I believe there is
consensus now that BIP65: CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY has higher deployment
priority, so it will be next. There is no deployment timeline for BIP62
because it is a low priority in this soft-fork logjam.
As to BIP62 being out of date, can you point to specific things? They'll
get fixed.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/attachments/20150718/2d3ce21e/attachment.html>
đ Original message:
On Sat, Jul 18, 2015 at 9:19 AM, Nick ODell <nickodell at gmail.com> wrote:
> There doesn't seem to be any deployment timeline.
>
Welcome to bitcoin development.
At the moment we have only the capability to push out one soft fork vote at
a time. The uncontroversial aspects of BIP62 were rushed out as BIP66 in
response to an undisclosed vulnerability, as mentioned. I believe there is
consensus now that BIP65: CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY has higher deployment
priority, so it will be next. There is no deployment timeline for BIP62
because it is a low priority in this soft-fork logjam.
As to BIP62 being out of date, can you point to specific things? They'll
get fixed.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/attachments/20150718/2d3ce21e/attachment.html>