[bitcoin-dev] An implementation of BIP102 as a softfork.

Peter Todd pete at petertodd.org
Wed Dec 30 14:31:37 UTC 2015

On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 06:19:55AM -0800, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 05:29:05AM -0800, Jonathan Toomim via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> > As a first impression, I think this proposal is intellectually interesting, but crufty and hackish and should never actually be deployed. Writing code for Bitcoin in a future in which we have deployed a few generalized softforks this way sounds terrifying.
> <snip>
> > It might be possible to make that a bit simpler with recursion, or by doing subsequent generalized softforks in a way that doesn't have multi-levels-deep block-within-a-block-within-a-block stuff. Still: ugh.
> Your fear is misplaced: it's trivial to avoid recursion with a bit of
> planning.
> For instance, if Bitcoin was redesigned to incorporate the forced fork

Actually, a better name is probably "forced soft-fork", making this
clear we're using the soft-fork mechanism to force everyone to upgrade.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 650 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20151230/a075a180/attachment-0001.sig>

More information about the bitcoin-dev mailing list