MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8;
 format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2015 07:55:28 -0500
From: jl2012 <jl2012@xbt.hk>
To: Jonathan Toomim <j@toom.im>
In-Reply-To: <77DAE310-204C-4275-A791-4047798FCBFE@toom.im>
References: <20151229053559.GA8657@muck>
	<26ec8367f2a1cda066b19e0bff498711@xbt.hk>
	<77DAE310-204C-4275-A791-4047798FCBFE@toom.im>
Message-ID: <777b112833eb55ae99af8cacaf0e3b5a@xbt.hk>
User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.0.6
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] We can trivially fix quadratic CHECKSIG with a
 simple soft-fork modifying just SignatureHash()
Precedence: list

What if someone complains? We can't even tell whether a complaint is 
legit or just trolling. That's why I think we need some general 
consensus rules which is not written in code, but as a social contract. 
Breaking those rules would be considered as a hardfork and is allowed 
only in exceptional situation.

Jonathan Toomim via bitcoin-dev 於 2015-12-29 07:42 寫到:
> That sounds like a rather unlikely scenario. Unless you have a
> specific reason to suspect that might be the case, I think we don't
> need to worry about it too much. If we announce the intention to
> perform such a soft fork a couple of months before the soft fork
> becomes active, and if nobody complains about it destroying their
> secret stash, then I think that's fair enough and we could proceed.
> 
> On Dec 28, 2015, at 11:47 PM, jl2012 via bitcoin-dev
> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> 
>> Do we need to consider that someone may have a timelocked big tx, with 
>> private key lost?
> 
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev