Re: [bitcoin-dev] Crossing the line? [Was: Re: Let's deploy BIP65 CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY!]

2015-10-02 15:14 GMT+02:00 jl2012 via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>: > According to the Oxford Dictionary, "coin" as a verb means "invent (a new > word or phrase)". Undoubtedly you created the first functional SPV client > but please retract the claim "I coined the term

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Crossing the line? [Was: Re: Let's deploy BIP65 CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY!]

FWIW the "coining" I am referring to is here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=7972.msg116285#msg116285 OK, with that, here goes. Firstly some terminology. I'm going to call these things SPV clients for "simplified payment verification". Headers-only is kind of a mouthful and "lightweight

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Crossing the line? [Was: Re: Let's deploy BIP65 CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY!]

According to the Oxford Dictionary, "coin" as a verb means "invent (a new word or phrase)". Undoubtedly you created the first functional SPV client but please retract the claim "I coined the term SPV" or that's plagiarism. And I'd like to highlight the following excerpt from the whitepaper:

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Crossing the line? [Was: Re: Let's deploy BIP65 CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY!]

On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 12:23 PM, Mike Hearn via bitcoin-dev wrote: > At that time nobody used the term "SPV wallet" to refer to what apps like > BreadWallet or libraries like bitcoinj do. Satoshi used the term "client > only mode", Jeff was calling them

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Crossing the line? [Was: Re: Let's deploy BIP65 CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY!]

To reduce the list noise level, drama level and promote inclusion, my own personal preference (list admin hat: off, community member hat: on) is for temporal bans based on temporal circumstances. Default to pro-forgiveness. Also, focus on disruption of the list as a metric, rather than focusing

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Crossing the line? [Was: Re: Let's deploy BIP65 CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY!]

Given the current reddit hubbub, a bit of a cooling off period is IMO advisable before taking any further action. 2. If so, does the community feel that Mike Hearn has crossed it? (I personally feel he has. Multiple times.) I don't believe any posting by Mr. Hearn warrants any actions