On Fri, Nov 07, 2014 at 09:07:47AM +0100, Tamas Blummer wrote: > Peter, > > forking would work best with a freeze of the consensus code. Do you see any > chance for that?
To a first approximation the consensus code *is* frozen; if we introduce any consensus changes into it at this point it's due to a mistake, not intentionally. Of course, that's not including the two serious soft-fork proposals in the air right now, Pieter Wuille's BIP62 and my CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY. However dealing with proposed changes like those in an environment where the competing implementations all use essentially the same consensus-critical code is much easier than in an environment where they don't; I say this on both a technical and political level. -- 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org 00000000000000000c901eb1b6b765519b99c3afd7a9062ff4cfa29666ce140d
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
