MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAJN5wHWCst=SmRA-Pu7fmJwxtL9aneCx_hkdDV0Nt7-fAjr5QA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <d17549688c0c747b2077c1f6f96b6445@xbt.hk>
	<CAJN5wHV-qyOcEw5spQc74nT7_b29WMiDTmi4Jj0ri_rGCQz2ng@mail.gmail.com>
	<E9543641-9D73-4A00-9CB3-FAB62BFB490E@gmail.com>
	<CAJN5wHXRwQZ6YmiZiCE9Gx4d-3FTzy1Zv7i2noia0mwtRwVL+w@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABm2gDp69g8H4Was2qzixPq3qwQ_smzzeFpE+y2GYEK6F4kUrw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJN5wHWCst=SmRA-Pu7fmJwxtL9aneCx_hkdDV0Nt7-fAjr5QA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2015 20:33:57 +0200
Message-ID: <CABm2gDr737EmUxYnHG6e-QJohRkyiMoXw38yVyyPGME-YvwaJg@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
To: Danny Thorpe <danny.thorpe@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin is an experiment. Why don't we have an
 experimental hardfork?
Precedence: list

On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 7:30 PM, Danny Thorpe <danny.thorpe@gmail.com> wrote:
> How do "big-block" testnet nodes running this 6382 rev recognize each other
> on the peer network? If I set up a 2MB block limit testnet node and -addnode
> another 2MB block testnet node (say, JornC's node) to it, and my node mines
> a block stuffed with 1.3MB of test txs, the other "big-block" node should
> accept my mined block, but it will be rejected / immediately orphaned by the
> rest of the testnet network because it exceeds their notion of block size
> limit, correct?

I have (hopefully) answered your questions in the other thread.
Review/testing of #6235 would be also appreciated (to hopefully
eventually merge the full #6382 branch into bitcoin/master).