Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
From: David Chan <digitsu@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <5a479e307f84c6e8547287489cd134d1@openmailbox.org>
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2015 19:39:41 +0900
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <AD5B1866-BB14-4752-9E0E-88651D8FEE97@gmail.com>
References: <1bf64a5b514d57ca37744ae5f5238149@openmailbox.org>
	<e170f3a10164019824edaafe5a04f067@xbt.hk>
	<f9ad1348fb7dedca35b594782fee7e0f@openmailbox.org>
	<20151230190043.GJ18200@mcelrath.org>
	<16BFC301-58C1-49F9-B2E5-A2C09C82A8CA@toom.im>
	<20151231000442.GK18200@mcelrath.org>
	<5a479e307f84c6e8547287489cd134d1@openmailbox.org>
To: joe2015@openmailbox.org
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Increasing the blocksize as a (generalized)
	softfork.
Precedence: list

The UTXO sets may diverge but they actually will be strict subsets/supersets=
 of each other as no transaction would be invalid on one fork vs another unl=
ess the hard fork lasts longer than 100 blocks.=20
This is of course specific to a block limit change hard fork.=20


On 2015/12/31, at 13:39, joe2015--- via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linux=
foundation.org> wrote:

>> So I'm very strongly against this "generalized softfork" idea -- I also d=
on't
>> see how upgraded nodes and non-upgraded nodes can possibly end up with th=
e same
>> UTXO set.
>=20
> The only way for non-upgraded nodes to get the correct UTXO set is to upgr=
ade.
>=20
> It is important to keep in mind this was proposed as an alternative to a h=
ardfork.  With a hardfork the UTXOs also diverge as upgraded and non-upgrade=
d clients follow different chains.
>=20
> --joe.
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev