Return-Path: <falke.marco@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
	[172.17.192.35])
	by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4D4A11093
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Wed, 30 Dec 2015 10:33:41 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-ig0-f170.google.com (mail-ig0-f170.google.com
	[209.85.213.170])
	by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A233313E
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Wed, 30 Dec 2015 10:33:40 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-ig0-f170.google.com with SMTP id to18so165218680igc.0
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Wed, 30 Dec 2015 02:33:40 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
	h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
	:cc:content-type;
	bh=z/cZzYQ9UXT3UO07VnaAIjDVbu7j9YU/X/rO/JWhbyg=;
	b=Dkm1J+IzCKF3GzwC+jTuFYjM0hvos5tNjPR5CRlHJLiDqRMr+O271HLCc+Zo2rOH9b
	jt9TzxTjD5QB1iSalx8Ephnrb1W/dviVJ5YAKGU4CfwU6Fml8/TVZfp/qwRTzvwuBk36
	GFjQSl13vMBkywTlNSjlolVSTVzJhupaJjChTdSeZ8ZrGWYosOajDycNYEh0H3RFSlqe
	t8glAOzWUpCeWqW5H+9UAKGmj09j4lwkE3ZouvinVOKEnb4oIjNsuEpnJeieSSln3ZH0
	mEeX9MgD7jGnDYK6GY60LqmEKIR1+moePfZZnOXW78aBollwVuVhPORg9w9OUuvvMPVu
	5lyA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.160.43 with SMTP id xh11mr39697734igb.73.1451471619996;
	Wed, 30 Dec 2015 02:33:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.64.90.7 with HTTP; Wed, 30 Dec 2015 02:33:39 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <6fc10e581a81abb76be5cd49275ebf48@openmailbox.org>
References: <6fc10e581a81abb76be5cd49275ebf48@openmailbox.org>
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2015 11:33:39 +0100
Message-ID: <CAKJqnrGUKeUb7g4SrjnWNAcPZOuLDKB-kjP2+Jy8Rdk_MfWLyQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Marco Falke <falke.marco@gmail.com>
To: joe2015@openmailbox.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
	DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM,
	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: Wed, 30 Dec 2015 14:12:33 +0000
Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] An implementation of BIP102 as a softfork.
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Development 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: Wed, 30 Dec 2015 10:33:41 -0000

This is an interesting approach but I don't see how this is a soft
fork. (Just because something is not a hard fork, doesn't make it a
soft fork by definition)
Softforks don't require any nodes to upgrade. [1]
Nonetheless, as I understand your approach, it requires nodes to
upgrade. Otherwise they are missing all transactions but the coinbase
transactions. Thus, they cannot update their utxoset and are easily
susceptible to double spends...

Am I missing something obvious?

-- Marco


[1] https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Softfork#Implications