What is Nostr?
Jorge Tim贸n [ARCHIVE] /
npub1fx9鈥2d8
2023-06-07 17:45:44
in reply to nevent1q鈥p6l

Jorge Tim贸n [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 馃搮 Original date posted:2015-12-09 馃摑 Original message:Fair enough. On Dec 9, ...

馃搮 Original date posted:2015-12-09
馃摑 Original message:Fair enough.
On Dec 9, 2015 4:03 PM, "Gregory Maxwell" <greg at xiph.org> wrote:

> On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 7:54 AM, Jorge Tim贸n <jtimon at jtimon.cc> wrote:
> > From this question one could think that when you said "we can do the
> > cleanup hardfork later" earlier you didn't really meant it. And that
> > you will oppose to that hardfork later just like you are opposing to
> > it now.
> > As said I disagree that making a softfork first and then move the
> > commitment is less disruptive (because people will need to adapt their
> > software twice), but if the intention is to never do the second part
> > then of course I agree it would be less disruptive.
> > How long after the softfork would you like to do the hardfork?
> > 1 year after the softfork? 2 years? never?
>
> I think it would be logical to do as part of a hardfork that moved
> commitments generally; e.g. a better position for merged mining (such
> a hardfork was suggested in 2010 as something that could be done if
> merged mining was used), room for commitments to additional block
> back-references for compact SPV proofs, and/or UTXO set commitments.
> Part of the reason to not do it now is that the requirements for the
> other things that would be there are not yet well defined. For these
> other applications, the additional overhead is actually fairly
> meaningful; unlike the fraud proofs.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20151209/0845be33/attachment.html>;
Author Public Key
npub1fx98zxt3lzspjs5f4msr0fxysx5euucm29ghysryju7vpc9j0jzqtcl2d8