Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.160.175 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.160.175; envelope-from=gavinandresen@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-yk0-f175.google.com; 
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CANEZrP0_jDouDCLn9BvxUd7UYiZLbVsaGGkkxwjcOYxZryBDPQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20141001130826.GM28710@savin.petertodd.org>
	<CABbpET8_FMCcnh0dELnHsYmF+YP05Gz=nZ3SPkLZuqXYV3JUpQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<1987325.zKPNeYyO8K@crushinator>
	<201410031750.27323.luke@dashjr.org>
	<CANEZrP1eGi-AHgciQiKUuUB7WwqKsMOyTjCQAAO=RWEkPC2Uiw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJHLa0NRNEQLqA2E=ysXsKw6hWS-H9X_AFYK4ckC4-_Bk=qbSA@mail.gmail.com>
	<20141004003850.GA23202@muck>
	<CANEZrP0_jDouDCLn9BvxUd7UYiZLbVsaGGkkxwjcOYxZryBDPQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2014 11:50:45 -0400
Message-ID: <CABsx9T0Q8g9KYRbAvCV=35x5Rb5HFnrNkrwwMZ=Mv-namMEPpg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
To: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf303b43a18d49f90504d72936
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>,
	Flavien Charlon <flavien.charlon@coinprism.com>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] [BIP draft] CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY - Prevent
 a txout from being spent until an expiration time
Precedence: list

--20cf303b43a18d49f90504d72936
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Sat, Oct 4, 2014 at 8:58 AM, Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net> wrote:

>
>> Meanwhile, what I said *is* correct. New version numbers result in only
> a log print. Being hard forked off results in both log prints *and* the
> -alertnotify being run:
>

That is easy to change; I'll submit a pull request. It is a good idea to
get an -alertnotify sooner rather than later for EITHER a hard fork or a
soft-fork. Better to be told you have to upgrade while the block.version is
on its way to being a super-majority than after you are either hard-forked
off the main chain (or soft-forked).

I don't have any opinion on the hard- versus soft- fork debate. I think
either can work.

-- 
--
Gavin Andresen

--20cf303b43a18d49f90504d72936
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On S=
at, Oct 4, 2014 at 8:58 AM, Mike Hearn <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mai=
lto:mike@plan99.net" target=3D"_blank">mike@plan99.net</a>&gt;</span> wrote=
:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-le=
ft:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_ex=
tra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><span class=3D""><blockquote class=3D"gmail=
_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:=
1ex"><br></blockquote></span><div>Meanwhile, what I said <b>is</b>=A0correc=
t. New version numbers result in only a log print. Being hard forked off re=
sults in both log prints <i>and</i>=A0the -alertnotify being run:<br></div>=
</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>That is easy to change; =
I&#39;ll submit a pull request. It is a good idea to get an -alertnotify so=
oner rather than later for EITHER a hard fork or a soft-fork. Better to be =
told you have to upgrade while the block.version is on its way to being a s=
uper-majority than after you are either hard-forked off the main chain (or =
soft-forked).</div></div><div><br></div><div>I don&#39;t have any opinion o=
n the hard- versus soft- fork debate. I think either can work.</div><div><b=
r></div>-- <br>--<br>Gavin Andresen<br>
</div></div>

--20cf303b43a18d49f90504d72936--