<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Dec 26, 2015 at 5:15 PM, Justus Ranvier via bitcoin-dev <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target="_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class="">On 12/26/2015 05:01 PM, Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev wrote:<br>
> I think the shortest reasonable timeframe for an uncontroversial<br>
> hardfork is somewhere in the range between 6 and 12 months.<br>
<br>
</span>This argument would hold more weight if it didn't looks like a stalling<br>
tactic in context.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I think you'll find that there hasn't been stalling regarding an uncontroversial hard-fork deployment. You might be confusing an uncontroversial hard-fork decision instead with how developers have brought up many issues about various (hard-forking) block size proposals.... I suspect this is what you're intending to mention instead, given your mention of "capacity emergencies" and also the subject line.</div><div> <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">6 months ago, there was a concerted effort to being the process then,<br>
for exactly this reason.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>The uncontroversial hard-fork proposals from 6 months ago were mostly along the lines of jtimon's proposals, which were not about capacity. (Although, I should say "almost entirely uncontroversial"-- obviously has been some minor (and in my opinion, entirely solvable) disagreement regarding prioritization of deploying a jtimon's uncontroversial hard-fork idea I guess, seeing as how it has not yet happened.)</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
After 6 months of denial, stonewalling, and generally unproductive<br>
fighting, the need for proactivity is being acknowledged with no<br>
reference to the delay.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>There wasn't 6 months of "stonewalling" or "denial" about an uncontroversial hard-fork proposal. There has been extensive discussion regarding the controversial (flawed?) properties of other (block size) proposals. But that's something else. Much of this has been rehashed ad nauseum on this mailing list already... thankfully I think your future emails could be improved and made more useful if you were to read the mailing list archives, try to employ more careful reasoning, etc. Thanks.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">If the network ever ends up making a hasty forced upgrade to solve a<br>
capacity emergency the responsibility for that difficulty will not fall<br>
on those who did their best to prevent emergency upgrades by planning ahead.<br></blockquote></div><br>("Capacity emergency" is too ambiguous in this context because of the competing concerns and tradeoffs regarding transaction rate capacity exhaustion vs. p2p low-bandwidth node bandwidth exhaustion.)<br><div><br></div><div class="gmail_signature">- Bryan<br><a href="http://heybryan.org/" target="_blank">http://heybryan.org/</a><br>1 512 203 0507</div>
</div></div>