On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 06:19:55AM -0800, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev wrote: > On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 05:29:05AM -0800, Jonathan Toomim via bitcoin-dev > wrote: > > As a first impression, I think this proposal is intellectually interesting, > > but crufty and hackish and should never actually be deployed. Writing code > > for Bitcoin in a future in which we have deployed a few generalized > > softforks this way sounds terrifying. > > <snip> > > > It might be possible to make that a bit simpler with recursion, or by doing > > subsequent generalized softforks in a way that doesn't have > > multi-levels-deep block-within-a-block-within-a-block stuff. Still: ugh. > > Your fear is misplaced: it's trivial to avoid recursion with a bit of > planning. > > For instance, if Bitcoin was redesigned to incorporate the forced fork
Actually, a better name is probably "forced soft-fork", making this clear we're using the soft-fork mechanism to force everyone to upgrade. -- 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org 00000000000000000831fc2554d9370aeba2701fff09980123d24a615eee7416
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
