Hardforks can be useful too.
But, yes, I agree softforks are preferable whenever possible.
On Sat, May 22, 2021, 20:55 Raystonn . wrote:
> None of these required a hard fork. I should rephrase my previous email
> to clarify the intended topic as hard consensus changes, requiring a hard
> fork.
None of these required a hard fork. I should rephrase my previous email to
clarify the intended topic as hard consensus changes, requiring a hard fork.
"Soft" forks can be useful.
Raystonn
From: Jorge Timón
Sent: Saturday, May 22, 2021 7:55 AM
To: Raystonn .
That is clearly not true. People entretain making changes to the protocol
all the time. Bitcoin is far from perfect and not improving it would be
stupid in my opinion.
Some improvements require changes to the consensus rules.
Recent changes include relative lock time verify or segwit. These are
Suggestions to make changes to Bitcoin's consensus protocol will only ever be
entertained if Bitcoin is completely dead without such a change. Any attempt
to change consensus protocol without a clear and convincing demonstration to
the entire network of participants that Bitcoin will die
Fair enough!
On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 4:33 PM Luke Dashjr wrote:
> On Friday 21 May 2021 07:56:51 Billy Tetrud via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> > These look like relatively well put together documents. However, they
> seem
> > relatively orthogonal to Bitcoin in that they look like protocols that
> >
