Jonathan Toomim [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2015-12-29 📝 Original message:That sounds like a rather ...
📅 Original date posted:2015-12-29
📝 Original message:That sounds like a rather unlikely scenario. Unless you have a specific reason to suspect that might be the case, I think we don't need to worry about it too much. If we announce the intention to perform such a soft fork a couple of months before the soft fork becomes active, and if nobody complains about it destroying their secret stash, then I think that's fair enough and we could proceed.
On Dec 28, 2015, at 11:47 PM, jl2012 via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Do we need to consider that someone may have a timelocked big tx, with private key lost?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 496 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20151229/11fa10ce/attachment.sig>;
📝 Original message:That sounds like a rather unlikely scenario. Unless you have a specific reason to suspect that might be the case, I think we don't need to worry about it too much. If we announce the intention to perform such a soft fork a couple of months before the soft fork becomes active, and if nobody complains about it destroying their secret stash, then I think that's fair enough and we could proceed.
On Dec 28, 2015, at 11:47 PM, jl2012 via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Do we need to consider that someone may have a timelocked big tx, with private key lost?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 496 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20151229/11fa10ce/attachment.sig>;