I am actually suggesting 1 hardfork, not 2. However, different rules are activated at different time to enhance safety and reduce disruption. The advantage is people are required to upgrade once, not twice. Any clients designed for stage 2 should also be ready for stage 3.
-----Original Message----- From: Matt Corallo [mailto:lf-li...@mattcorallo.com] Sent: Wednesday, 10 February, 2016 06:15 To: jl2...@xbt.hk; bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] A roadmap to a better header format and bigger block size As for your stages idea, I generally like the idea (and mentioned it may be a good idea in my proposal), but am worried about scheduling two hard-forks at once....Lets do our first hard-fork first with the things we think we will need anytime in the visible future that we have reasonable designs for now, and talk about a second one after we've seen what did/didnt blow up with the first one. Anyway, this generally seems reasonable - it looks like most of this matches up with what I said more specifically in my mail yesterday, with the addition of timewarp fixes, which we should probably add, and Luke's header changes, which I need to spend some more time thinking about. Matt _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
