š
Original date posted:2015-10-06
š Original message:Just read the proposal for the dual modes... Think it would be best... Protocol question? Do we discuss the algorithms here on this forum? Or...
Sorry again for my thick skull!
Nina K
Sent from my iPhone
> On Oct 6, 2015, at 1:34 AM, NotMike Hearn via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> I think I can solve the debate and give everyone what they want.
>
> Some people want BIP65, others do not.
>
> We can roll out 65 in a clever way, such that Greg/PeterT can get it, but Mike and Peter R don't need to have it (both versions can run alongside each other). Even better, people can switch back and forth between versions as much as they like.
>
> How might this work? Well, paradoxically, we could do this by *imposing additional constraints* on transaction validation, such that transactions made a very specific certain way will always look valid to non-CLTVers, but for CLTVers they will not be valid unless the CLTV rules are followed. The obvious concern is that non-CLTV people might receive invalid payments. However, their software is already set up to request payments in a non-CLTV way, so, luckily, this is actually not a problem at all! SPV clients can elect to only connect to nodes which are non-CLTV.
>
> Problem solved!
>
> I am happy to have solved this problem for you all, and ended this discord harmoniously. If we all put our heads together, these words of founding father Aretha Franklin will ring true: "there's nothing we can't overcome".
>
>
>> On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 3:29 AM, Marcel Jamin via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>> This is childish and very disappointing to see.
>>
>> 2015-10-06 9:20 GMT+02:00 Eric Lombrozo via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>:
>>> I prefer the term "clown".
>>>
>>> Can we please move on?
>>>
>>> ------ Original Message ------
>>> From: "cipher anthem via bitcoin-dev" <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>
>>> To: milly at bitcoins.info
>>> Cc: bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>>> Sent: 10/6/2015 12:17:14 AM
>>> Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] This thread is not about the soft/hard fork technical debate
>>>
>>>>> Sent: Monday, October 05, 2015 at 8:21 PM
>>>>> From: "Milly Bitcoin via bitcoin-dev" <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>
>>>>> To: bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>>>>> Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] This thread is not about the soft/hard fork technical debate
>>>>>> On 10/5/2015 4:05 PM, Steven Pine via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>>>>>> It's pretty clear Mike has turned into concern troll and bully.
>>>>
>>>>> "troll" and, even worse, "concern troll" are terms generally used by
>>>>> teenagers on places like Reddit to complain about someone who doesn't
>>>>> agree with them.
>>>>
>>>> They should substitute troll for cultist so they appear more professional...
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>>>> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>>>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>>> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20151006/a9d956f7/attachment-0001.html>;
naama.kates at gmail.com [ARCHIVE] /
npub1z3ā¦s35aw
2023-06-07 19:42:46
in reply to nevent1qā¦78rm
Author Public Key
npub1z3pv699thu72ewq38lny6cj5dx0xq6ft6mwlckjfus5qta4rx0gs7s35awPublished at
2023-06-07 19:42:46Event JSON
{
"id": "c3a14916dc29d9c8c63315ed89c07c3b10fd0ae335fb00440f7004a80d4a82e2",
"pubkey": "1442cd14abbf3cacb8113fe64d6254699e60692bd6ddfc5a49e42805f6a333d1",
"created_at": 1686159766,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"8b171b0a181c0ea41f6054eb15f1f19559c90fd9ce9e5f5fc159720aea23cfd9",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"7ab651bc4883288588922e360349424b460abce2744423b9c4fee181aace4ef2",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"b586a7b709efbaaf7003fd864038dd9a173460b3d98b86fc240c48c047d03ba0"
]
],
"content": "š
Original date posted:2015-10-06\nš Original message:Just read the proposal for the dual modes... Think it would be best... Protocol question? Do we discuss the algorithms here on this forum? Or...\n\nSorry again for my thick skull!\n\nNina K\n\nSent from my iPhone\n\n\u003e On Oct 6, 2015, at 1:34 AM, NotMike Hearn via bitcoin-dev \u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \n\u003e I think I can solve the debate and give everyone what they want.\n\u003e \n\u003e Some people want BIP65, others do not.\n\u003e \n\u003e We can roll out 65 in a clever way, such that Greg/PeterT can get it, but Mike and Peter R don't need to have it (both versions can run alongside each other). Even better, people can switch back and forth between versions as much as they like.\n\u003e \n\u003e How might this work? Well, paradoxically, we could do this by *imposing additional constraints* on transaction validation, such that transactions made a very specific certain way will always look valid to non-CLTVers, but for CLTVers they will not be valid unless the CLTV rules are followed. The obvious concern is that non-CLTV people might receive invalid payments. However, their software is already set up to request payments in a non-CLTV way, so, luckily, this is actually not a problem at all! SPV clients can elect to only connect to nodes which are non-CLTV.\n\u003e \n\u003e Problem solved!\n\u003e \n\u003e I am happy to have solved this problem for you all, and ended this discord harmoniously. If we all put our heads together, these words of founding father Aretha Franklin will ring true: \"there's nothing we can't overcome\".\n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e\u003e On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 3:29 AM, Marcel Jamin via bitcoin-dev \u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\u003e This is childish and very disappointing to see.\n\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e 2015-10-06 9:20 GMT+02:00 Eric Lombrozo via bitcoin-dev \u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e:\n\u003e\u003e\u003e I prefer the term \"clown\".\n\u003e\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e\u003e Can we please move on?\n\u003e\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e\u003e ------ Original Message ------\n\u003e\u003e\u003e From: \"cipher anthem via bitcoin-dev\" \u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e To: milly at bitcoins.info\n\u003e\u003e\u003e Cc: bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e\u003e\u003e Sent: 10/6/2015 12:17:14 AM\n\u003e\u003e\u003e Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] This thread is not about the soft/hard fork technical debate\n\u003e\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e Sent: Monday, October 05, 2015 at 8:21 PM\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e From: \"Milly Bitcoin via bitcoin-dev\" \u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e To: bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] This thread is not about the soft/hard fork technical debate\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e On 10/5/2015 4:05 PM, Steven Pine via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e It's pretty clear Mike has turned into concern troll and bully.\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e \"troll\" and, even worse, \"concern troll\" are terms generally used by\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e teenagers on places like Reddit to complain about someone who doesn't\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e agree with them.\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e They should substitute troll for cultist so they appear more professional...\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e\u003e\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e\u003e\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e\u003e\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e \n\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20151006/a9d956f7/attachment-0001.html\u003e",
"sig": "8c5bc73c775791a695681f376a3f52044cc8a64fb2c3a7eb2506429f603ed8016cf560556fb7b350541d6ea411c4a56d4c2c70e236d1be7ad61a4788d3c00299"
}