diff options
| author | joe2015 <joe2015@openmailbox.org> | 2015-12-31 12:39:25 +0800 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | bitcoindev <bitcoindev@gnusha.org> | 2015-12-31 04:39:31 +0000 |
| commit | 85f36c34983b6768c96056a651f003f3868fa19b (patch) | |
| tree | 0d41b5d40f555b31dd619c338b9e35c6a728eb71 | |
| parent | 4dff7c276667cdf14e9fb0a0aad812959b44c16a (diff) | |
| download | pi-bitcoindev-85f36c34983b6768c96056a651f003f3868fa19b.tar.gz pi-bitcoindev-85f36c34983b6768c96056a651f003f3868fa19b.zip | |
Re: [bitcoin-dev] Increasing the blocksize as a (generalized) softfork.
| -rw-r--r-- | d6/3adc2135629ebee056ee687d67e6ddd08c810b | 78 |
1 files changed, 78 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/d6/3adc2135629ebee056ee687d67e6ddd08c810b b/d6/3adc2135629ebee056ee687d67e6ddd08c810b new file mode 100644 index 000000000..c451f7745 --- /dev/null +++ b/d6/3adc2135629ebee056ee687d67e6ddd08c810b @@ -0,0 +1,78 @@ +Return-Path: <joe2015@openmailbox.org> +Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org + [172.17.192.35]) + by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2C9DE941 + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Thu, 31 Dec 2015 04:39:31 +0000 (UTC) +X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 +Received: from mail2.openmailbox.org (mail2.openmailbox.org [62.4.1.33]) + by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5E7CC14E + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Thu, 31 Dec 2015 04:39:30 +0000 (UTC) +Received: by mail2.openmailbox.org (Postfix, from userid 1004) + id 7B2892AC546C; Thu, 31 Dec 2015 05:39:28 +0100 (CET) +DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=openmailbox.org; + s=openmailbox; t=1451536768; + bh=WG1d57qYQH3eRyr+N25Y5TWeSSdPe6M/U2bUQUXDNHQ=; + h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; + b=bhqT8I2QWQwDdLlZ+21qlIrg4GxuWlZ3O7DA2uTvYJFHGXehX7ynSZfMaR0hMZvml + TANa5nast+Da7qNQqf7+zxDJx0da5QDLk5C4QhKoPVclHzehDwwOMNXTwWKjWSI4hd + 5kS5NrVaK6Pd3UAUKu5QfjGeHwuKTfz93NQ12Vpk= +X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on + smtp1.linux-foundation.org +X-Spam-Level: +X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, + DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW, + RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 +Received: from www.openmailbox.org (openmailbox-b2 [10.91.69.220]) + by mail2.openmailbox.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C78142AC5EE7; + Thu, 31 Dec 2015 05:39:25 +0100 (CET) +MIME-Version: 1.0 +Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; + format=flowed +Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit +Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2015 12:39:25 +0800 +From: joe2015@openmailbox.org +To: Bob McElrath <bob_bitcoin@mcelrath.org> +In-Reply-To: <20151231000442.GK18200@mcelrath.org> +References: <1bf64a5b514d57ca37744ae5f5238149@openmailbox.org> + <e170f3a10164019824edaafe5a04f067@xbt.hk> + <f9ad1348fb7dedca35b594782fee7e0f@openmailbox.org> + <20151230190043.GJ18200@mcelrath.org> + <16BFC301-58C1-49F9-B2E5-A2C09C82A8CA@toom.im> + <20151231000442.GK18200@mcelrath.org> +Message-ID: <5a479e307f84c6e8547287489cd134d1@openmailbox.org> +X-Sender: joe2015@openmailbox.org +User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.0.6 +X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 31 Dec 2015 06:48:00 +0000 +Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> +Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Increasing the blocksize as a (generalized) + softfork. +X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org +X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 +Precedence: list +List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org> +List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>, + <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe> +List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/> +List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> +List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help> +List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>, + <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe> +X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2015 04:39:31 -0000 + +> So I'm very strongly against this "generalized softfork" idea -- I also +> don't +> see how upgraded nodes and non-upgraded nodes can possibly end up with +> the same +> UTXO set. + +The only way for non-upgraded nodes to get the correct UTXO set is to +upgrade. + +It is important to keep in mind this was proposed as an alternative to a +hardfork. With a hardfork the UTXOs also diverge as upgraded and +non-upgraded clients follow different chains. + +--joe. + |