On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 02:50:31PM -0400, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> It's time to deploy BIP65 CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY. There appears to be common agreement on that. The only source of some controversy is how to deploy: versionbits versus IsSuperMajority. I think the versionbits proposal should first have code out there for longer before we consider it for concrete softforks. Haste-ing along versionbits because CLTV is wanted would be risky. > I've backported the CLTV op-code and a IsSuperMajority() soft-fork to > the v0.10 and v0.11 branches, pull-reqs #6706 and #6707 respectively. A > pull-req for git HEAD for the soft-fork deployment has been open since > June 28th, #6351 - the opcode implementation itself was merged two > months ago. > We should release a v0.10.3 and v0.11.1 with CLTV and get the ball > rolling on miner adoption. We have consensus that we need CLTV, we have > a well tested implementation, and we have a well-tested deployment > mechanism. As you say, the underlying code has been merged for months in master, and #6351 seems to have had quite some eyes on it already. It does need to be made sure that the backports are correct, however. Although the tests do provide some assurance, I think those two pulls require more review. After they are merged, a 0.10.3 and 0.11.1 release can be rolled out (with RC cycle). > We also don't need to wait for other soft-fork proposals to > catch up - starting the CLTV deployment process isn't going to delay > future soft-forks, or for that matter, hard-forks. > > I think it's possible to safely get CLTV live on mainnet before the end > of the year. It's time we get this over with and done. Wladimir _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
