Peter Todd [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2014-11-07 📝 Original message:On Fri, Nov 07, 2014 at ...

📅 Original date posted:2014-11-07
📝 Original message:On Fri, Nov 07, 2014 at 09:07:47AM +0100, Tamas Blummer wrote:
> Peter,
>
> forking would work best with a freeze of the consensus code. Do you see any chance for that?

To a first approximation the consensus code *is* frozen; if we introduce
any consensus changes into it at this point it's due to a mistake, not
intentionally.

Of course, that's not including the two serious soft-fork proposals in
the air right now, Pieter Wuille's BIP62 and my CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY.
However dealing with proposed changes like those in an environment where
the competing implementations all use essentially the same
consensus-critical code is much easier than in an environment where they
don't; I say this on both a technical and political level.

--
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
00000000000000000c901eb1b6b765519b99c3afd7a9062ff4cfa29666ce140d
-------------- 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/20141107/8f333438/attachment.sig>;