On 01/07/2017 12:55 AM, Eric Lombrozo via bitcoin-dev wrote: > Your release announcement does not make it clear that Bitcoin Classic is > incompatible with the current Bitcoin network and its consensus rules. > It is a hard fork on mainnet with no safe activation as well as > including other unsafe changes. There is also no BIP for the hard fork. > There is also no evidence of community wide consensus for such a hard > fork. This is dangerous and irresponsible.
While I agree with the sentiment, to be fair one should acknowledge that Bitcoin Core has intentionally implemented two hard forks since Nov 2015. The earlier is released, and I assume the latter will be. Neither was subject to activation, or prior public debate (see Buried Deployments threads): https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2016-November/thread.html There was at least some internal discussion about whether a BIP should document the latter having occurred, and that question was put to the list: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2016-November/013275.html Some have argued that these are inconsequential changes. I disagree, as the arguments is base on provably invalid assumptions. Nevertheless, if hard fork is the threshold criteria here, Core has not met it. e
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
