Opinion: if a soft work works, it should be preferred, if for no other
reason than once a hard-fork is planned, the discussion begins about
what else to throw in. To minimize the frequency of hard-forks, the
time for that is when the change being considered actually requires one.
I'm not
Yes, you're right. I didn't consider that case. But the problem is that
this is not automatic. Currently there is a clear division between
miners how will not take the kickback (irrrational) and miners who will
(rational).
This seems to come up a lot. Your definition of rational is a short
On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 6:08 PM, Mike Hearn m...@plan99.net wrote:
That is easy to change; I'll submit a pull request.
That's certainly a useful improvement. It won't help the existing userbase
though - assuming CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY is to go in to the next major release.
The next minor release
By the way, I really like this proposal. I haven't spent much time
thinking about the deeper subtleties and risks associated with it, but I
see a lot of opportunities. One just came to mind that I didn't see
mentioned in his original proposal:
_Non-Interactive Recurring payments__with
4 matches
Mail list logo
