Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C68CC481 for ; Wed, 16 Nov 2016 23:58:20 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-vk0-f43.google.com (mail-vk0-f43.google.com [209.85.213.43]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6C0A92DC for ; Wed, 16 Nov 2016 23:58:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-vk0-f43.google.com with SMTP id p9so128696198vkd.3 for ; Wed, 16 Nov 2016 15:58:20 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=jtimon-cc.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=AFKUQorNjBLAYvxHMN3icwtWlYAAj4rIXKH/4QS1KKg=; b=jTan1BCciiAIdqHqGpYestxFp3iYwQTa99G3YPQW4sZjsGnaYnzxjZZMbmnhyUHCRW RinfgU7jv4NKLu95G4LKwkjaVYtShd9gnlUheNqNz3bdYOanHBk0euqolFeOB81Ey9wi qFHXFsjCCTjOmsnYNpvGH9+kc8Ky6T+5zaMcsqdUKjZdhYaexzz9qzSPp7hXvKaqpN3t CMfO7k20xg5fx36AIZFFKd1cv4NhFhwtVkAocNdeX3OYpvijxAHaIFzKGRWh2IBNYxMr PvJzkowdWrhOJ3+sYcTgdbdKkGDjk5DUk2N+LVS4PkY7jisBnpIXFSGExxnfBkgbcRm5 wsgg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=AFKUQorNjBLAYvxHMN3icwtWlYAAj4rIXKH/4QS1KKg=; b=SyUSmntlD/M4GTTA+Kb1GaO0xyE08zBH3clMtBimpKMd3DWo3iwCjvR+cuBOSahzks Fu52uiDQZNKPDF/4kmwlO7W9NMP3EpdUsRHrY5rO2OBv9a7zNtCB+rM8iY7TLKRr+i3+ mJh6wzDVnZZOhBrBP6zhS0eXPaNgT621YO8a5Q0PSesCpXSpUIInC4f+4BmXBEqRfo89 XhrxfoAF9aJq3fvNjv3MH+Oormhts/dw6DZyEHAUAZKZuur4WPPC7SQ+ci40C0Vyl+sP JkWk82/9oOM/sUU6E/i1ykuuA8JMdhmWWn03CLfcsiQWWyoMIF8fYu/jMhX+tZn3B+Dq px4Q== X-Gm-Message-State: AKaTC00Wh+HyPUaEnhZJtDbJFT86kFa40vwXr0jXGQ0mqu9MnU+LrSeE5q8DUEPVv4vv/CEZkwgUEF8m7R+0bQ== X-Received: by 10.31.221.66 with SMTP id u63mr103533vkg.16.1479340699619; Wed, 16 Nov 2016 15:58:19 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.31.41.15 with HTTP; Wed, 16 Nov 2016 15:58:19 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <33BFC318-0BB4-48DB-B5DC-08247FAC6E5A@voskuil.org> From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 00:58:19 +0100 Message-ID: To: Thomas Kerin , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, 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 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] [BIP Proposal] Buried Deployments 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: Wed, 16 Nov 2016 23:58:20 -0000 On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 3:18 PM, Thomas Kerin via bitcoin-dev wrote: > BIP30 actually was given similar treatment after a reasonable amount of time > had passed. > https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/main.cpp#L2392 This is not really the same. BIP30 is not validated after BIP34 is active because blocks complying with BIP34 will always necessarily comply with BIP30 (ie coinbases cannot be duplicated after they include the block height).