MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <2983024.JOGDlViq2a@cherry>
References: <CAAS2fgRdSOu8N6L3+fBpnye+rM+W6+F=cePy=9oL4tJuCj=Jsw@mail.gmail.com>
	<1521038.c5zslb6dar@cherry>
	<CADvTj4pj+opWPy5BLT+64Lfys7nGA2PFdzQNNVuRMU8BGhNS5Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<2983024.JOGDlViq2a@cherry>
From: James Hilliard <james.hilliard1@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2017 15:51:04 -0500
Message-ID: <CADvTj4qjCvN_kPV8YBz0f94YD2Ur4PWqryFPeKQ42fx_Wj2hTQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tom Zander <tomz@freedommail.ch>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] I do not support the BIP 148 UASF
Precedence: list

On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 3:34 PM, Tom Zander <tomz@freedommail.ch> wrote:
> On Friday, 14 April 2017 21:33:49 CEST James Hilliard wrote:
>> This is false,
>>
>> Those "everyone can spend" transactions are prohibited from being
>> mined due to policy rules.
>
> I expected you to know this, but ok, I'll explain.
>
> A policy rule is not a protocol rule, a mining node is certainly not
> guarenteet to have it, and those that do typically make it configurable.
Yes one can override policy rules and mine invalid SW transactions,
but that's not something that's likely to happen accidentally.
>
> If you depend on one implementation and user configuration for the avoidance
> of chain forks, you are going to have a hard time.
We don't depend on policy to avoid chain forks, policy however is
quite useful for making forks smoother since it can prevent miners
from accidentally mining invalid blocks and prevents users from
accepting invalid transactions accidentally.
This doesn't remove the need for consensus rule enforcement of course.
>
> Thanks for your thoughtful reply, though.
> --
> Tom Zander
> Blog: https://zander.github.io
> Vlog: https://vimeo.com/channels/tomscryptochannel