Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.2 \(3259\))
From: Johnson Lau <jl2012@xbt.hk>
In-Reply-To: <5276b225-0a90-8539-6024-17b74433cb29@thinlink.com>
Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2017 04:47:22 +0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <D7E940F0-FDAB-4F99-B17C-B418BEBFF96E@xbt.hk>
References: <A182F080-F154-4F05-B2F1-21B90E469267@xbt.hk>
	<efad941b-ce3e-1c98-ca5b-51da66badc6c@thinlink.com>
	<3F2FDFFC-A73B-4C0F-A7B2-8449332BE70E@xbt.hk>
	<5276b225-0a90-8539-6024-17b74433cb29@thinlink.com>
To: Tom Harding <tomh@thinlink.com>
Cc: bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Anti-transaction replay in a hardfork
Precedence: list


> On 26 Jan 2017, at 03:32, Tom Harding <tomh@thinlink.com> wrote:
>=20
> On 1/24/2017 8:03 PM, Johnson Lau wrote:
>> it seems they are not the same: yours is opt-out, while mine is =
opt-in.
>=20
> I missed this.  So in fact you propose a self-defeating requirement on =
the new network, which would force unmodified yet otherwise compatible =
systems to change to support the new network at all. This is unlikely to =
be included in new network designs.
>=20
> I suggest that the opt-out bits proposal comes from a more realistic =
position that would actually make sense for everyone.
>=20

I think there are some misunderstanding. You=E2=80=99d better read my =
source code if my explanation is not clear.

=46rom my understanding our proposals are the same, just with a bitwise =
not (~) before the network characteristic byte. So you set a bit to =
opt-out a network, while I set a bit to opt-in a network (and opt-out =
any other)=