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
|
Return-Path: <jl2012@xbt.hk>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E044A941
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 27 Jan 2017 20:47:36 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from sender163-mail.zoho.com (sender163-mail.zoho.com
[74.201.84.163])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5F64E17A
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 27 Jan 2017 20:47:36 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [10.8.8.2] (119246245241.ctinets.com [119.246.245.241]) by
mx.zohomail.com with SMTPS id 1485550047293203.3451733103085;
Fri, 27 Jan 2017 12:47:27 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.2 \(3259\))
From: Johnson Lau <jl2012@xbt.hk>
In-Reply-To: <5276b225-0a90-8539-6024-17b74433cb29@thinlink.com>
Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2017 04:47:22 +0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <D7E940F0-FDAB-4F99-B17C-B418BEBFF96E@xbt.hk>
References: <A182F080-F154-4F05-B2F1-21B90E469267@xbt.hk>
<efad941b-ce3e-1c98-ca5b-51da66badc6c@thinlink.com>
<3F2FDFFC-A73B-4C0F-A7B2-8449332BE70E@xbt.hk>
<5276b225-0a90-8539-6024-17b74433cb29@thinlink.com>
To: Tom Harding <tomh@thinlink.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3259)
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE
autolearn=ham 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] Anti-transaction replay in a hardfork
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, 27 Jan 2017 20:47:37 -0000
> On 26 Jan 2017, at 03:32, Tom Harding <tomh@thinlink.com> wrote:
>=20
> On 1/24/2017 8:03 PM, Johnson Lau wrote:
>> it seems they are not the same: yours is opt-out, while mine is =
opt-in.
>=20
> I missed this. So in fact you propose a self-defeating requirement on =
the new network, which would force unmodified yet otherwise compatible =
systems to change to support the new network at all. This is unlikely to =
be included in new network designs.
>=20
> I suggest that the opt-out bits proposal comes from a more realistic =
position that would actually make sense for everyone.
>=20
I think there are some misunderstanding. You=E2=80=99d better read my =
source code if my explanation is not clear.
=46rom my understanding our proposals are the same, just with a bitwise =
not (~) before the network characteristic byte. So you set a bit to =
opt-out a network, while I set a bit to opt-in a network (and opt-out =
any other)=
|
