Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F008F3EE for ; Fri, 5 May 2017 13:09:18 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from out4-smtp.messagingengine.com (out4-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.28]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5CAA0F0 for ; Fri, 5 May 2017 13:09:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.internal [10.202.2.42]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95BE320A23; Fri, 5 May 2017 09:09:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: from web3 ([10.202.2.213]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Fri, 05 May 2017 09:09:17 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:to:x-me-sender :x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=vI7DEp7d5b4r25MoNFxnL4ciwM9vo sUToDMiZZG1/ow=; b=UL8jV74Q887Rp8NNXrTrMwrixavrbiqibHTfRzQ4nYdQc sZKYAdF3e155oYcwYEwgcHVH6RZdLSw//Dcn3Uxz2b0W8RenEsf/J2thFxNeaARd 0GkyD6CP2Qul5OP8q3iHW++pG0bP6+Dwd15jCGLjEJTAlvW5hvNaAI4OOg1D5qJ5 4cvt0QV6dsDfgWQ2g5C1gerEtRfEt7PXtr37q4w77eLd48O4FYs46hSNO2e/sS4e 1JlyXTfhzpnDWFtPF2sfvVjoLt+F1NPyCPQyq6MODFwPLHmaHRQdzDh6t5zH1reE TwnM20QDBpylPmbtiPq3Rj1b/4NF+kO6nX0aLGrqg== X-ME-Sender: Received: by mailuser.nyi.internal (Postfix, from userid 99) id 6F0E79EC44; Fri, 5 May 2017 09:09:17 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <1493989757.1477512.966870152.4C72B056@webmail.messagingengine.com> From: Tomas To: Bryan Bishop MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_----------=_149398975714775122" X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface - ajax-6cc55fe1 Date: Fri, 05 May 2017 15:09:17 +0200 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 05 May 2017 13:10:06 +0000 Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Non-confirming block signalling X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 05 May 2017 13:09:19 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --_----------=_149398975714775122 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Sorry, I wasn't aware. This is indeed the same proposal. On Fri, May 5, 2017, at 15:01, Bryan Bishop wrote: > On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 6:24 AM, Tomas via bitcoin-dev dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:>> I propose a method to mark blocks to indicate that they were >> generated>> without verifying the previous block. This can be done by using >> a bit of>> the version field. > > see also: > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-December/011853.html> > - Bryan > http://heybryan.org/ > 1 512 203 0507 --_----------=_149398975714775122 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8"
Sorry, I wasn't aware. This is indeed the same proposal.



On Fri, May 5, 2017, at 15:01, Bryan Bishop wrote:
On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 6:24 AM, Tomas via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
I propose a method to mark blocks to indicate that they were generated
without verifying the previous block. This can be done by using a bit of
the version field.

see also:

--_----------=_149398975714775122--