1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
|
Return-Path: <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3A8E3504
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 7 Jul 2017 23:25:34 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-vk0-f49.google.com (mail-vk0-f49.google.com
[209.85.213.49])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BF16817C
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 7 Jul 2017 23:25:33 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-vk0-f49.google.com with SMTP id r125so25393926vkf.1
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 07 Jul 2017 16:25:33 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025;
h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id
:subject:to:cc;
bh=+wt4or3yjRzt0HxcGgsANkkZSdj+2BZlGDDkIifEaHE=;
b=khjmxXRgbodGkj+g1QKi3XT/n7MqOqotiYeY5hC3NxSS0szSNht1HzBc+mRceav8aK
S1mI8V4HYmMkMC/sr1VtH3SAETik71Jc+kDG8ICYZhp+tiX16ki8GN7VvHrLFFLbjpGp
/rc6V63x4rWq0e9Um2js2bE7GU1I0e2VO9YW3bBzZXDsNcw0dgCUhoZfHm9w8mMZi/h7
m6XkRJTUrlSlE9RtZSlnA/C+PZ90xs22y38+BDJQtSmj9aOSQI3ETiglT6IZS+JbP0H/
/wrvsIcAcgg09iXx6OEHYqgKmYFiYBIhKJ+paDYhg5I0l2RbmFEVXLoj+vsFRTHqTmgw
1q5g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from
:date:message-id:subject:to:cc;
bh=+wt4or3yjRzt0HxcGgsANkkZSdj+2BZlGDDkIifEaHE=;
b=fmUkKdgoEpgLjMN8/tFDE7yZ6dcVmwAsBigwpzwsnv4o/aeA51zWaf9d/WSDSTA5ao
7M/TQpMIA2kg9BCTlAhpgDZJ71kC9DCpK+6sqbOEMtMzS0e8psVpNjshGZp5MNP8wor/
Cq28NsCm5sre0CrRXNxg2KsmQ+ZUBwGx7IBMUgVodp8ljNkgFaJbonc+9L83r5QYDvVe
7g3EwDsb2Jj2yD0SluYKB5HRM88/QtfScpJ1bZ7TQB0rOahdA+MJ08YZotIEBEVg8i2D
LzomkhU/KQdEAPyFIVJlmz6YV4WFODDMElN0OOuUDElr74RhP2H7m0iTfCnDjoldNgOa
36MQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIVw111xFNbWpAtuOY/gq5E0AfPD83ZZ1DI10Dpp2bsAJKV2dHWxd/oP
KMpRI+hRrzHBCb310wuooq/3zQAW+A==
X-Received: by 10.31.16.206 with SMTP id 75mr2026718vkq.31.1499469932999; Fri,
07 Jul 2017 16:25:32 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: gmaxwell@gmail.com
Received: by 10.103.40.2 with HTTP; Fri, 7 Jul 2017 16:25:32 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <93708933-fdea-cdfc-20fc-b18040b98110@mattcorallo.com>
References: <CAKzdR-qCmuj02yobAj9YDYq7Ed309z2VUaMtbL_i9vF3zkp5mw@mail.gmail.com>
<93708933-fdea-cdfc-20fc-b18040b98110@mattcorallo.com>
From: Gregory Maxwell <greg@xiph.org>
Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2017 23:25:32 +0000
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 0UEcMnGUXhTb6cs7tcxSwKZwLgs
Message-ID: <CAAS2fgSH8tugh3gBYmMY-ZEzO6c=jZoMczTi7ifULxP9xJsEpQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Matt Corallo <lf-lists@mattcorallo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID, FREEMAIL_FROM, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,
RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM autolearn=no version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Cc: bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] A Segwit2x BIP
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol 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: Fri, 07 Jul 2017 23:25:34 -0000
On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 10:44 PM, Matt Corallo via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> This is not a hard fork, simply adding a new limit is a soft fork. You
> appear to be confused - as originally written, AFAIR, Jeff's btc1 branch
> did not increase the block size, your specification here matches that
> original change, and does not increase the block size.
Indeed, their code previously did not increase the blocksize but it
was adjusted at the last minute to do so-- so it may actually do that
now. Because they don't appear to have implemented any tests for it, I
wouldn't be too surprised if it still didn't work at all but also
wouldn't be surprised if it did.
You are correct that the specification text appears to refer to the
prior change that did not. (In my response I just assumed that it
meant what they actually did-- good catch).
|
