From: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org>
To: jl2012@xbt.hk
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2015 05:06:36 +0000
User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/4.1.9-gentoo-r1; KDE/4.14.8; x86_64; ; )
References: <201511011906.44081.luke@dashjr.org>
	<67789addeb5a0e702998f26cc16a8dbd@xbt.hk>
In-Reply-To: <67789addeb5a0e702998f26cc16a8dbd@xbt.hk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
  charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <201511020506.37593.luke@dashjr.org>
Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP 113: Median time-past is a HARDfork,
	not a softfork!
Precedence: list

On Monday, November 02, 2015 4:27:50 AM jl2012@xbt.hk wrote:
> Currently, a tx maybe included in a block only if its locktime (x) is
> smaller than the timestamp of a block (y)
> 
> BIP113 says that a tx maybe included in a block only if x is smaller
> than the median-time-past (z)
> 
> It is already a consensus rule that y > z. Therefore, if x < z, x < y
> 
> The new rule is absolutely stricter than the old rule, so it is a
> softfork. Anything wrong with my interpretation?

I agree, false alarm. Somehow I had confused the comparison of locktimes this 
morning. :(

Sorry about that,

Luke