1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
|
Return-Path: <luke@dashjr.org>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6AE978F0
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 2 Nov 2015 05:06:57 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from zinan.dashjr.org (zinan.dashjr.org [192.3.11.21])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1DFCEE
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 2 Nov 2015 05:06:56 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from ishibashi.localnet (unknown
[IPv6:2001:470:5:265:61b6:56a6:b03d:28d6])
(Authenticated sender: luke-jr)
by zinan.dashjr.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7692138A601C;
Mon, 2 Nov 2015 05:06:38 +0000 (UTC)
X-Hashcash: 1:25:151102:jl2012@xbt.hk::azvX0KGRx6njkv2D:aoe/b
X-Hashcash: 1:25:151102:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org::5a6jGB6/Go6soxp/:aJS71
From: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org>
To: jl2012@xbt.hk
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2015 05:06:36 +0000
User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/4.1.9-gentoo-r1; KDE/4.14.8; x86_64; ; )
References: <201511011906.44081.luke@dashjr.org>
<67789addeb5a0e702998f26cc16a8dbd@xbt.hk>
In-Reply-To: <67789addeb5a0e702998f26cc16a8dbd@xbt.hk>
X-PGP-Key-Fingerprint: E463 A93F 5F31 17EE DE6C 7316 BD02 9424 21F4 889F
X-PGP-Key-ID: BD02942421F4889F
X-PGP-Keyserver: hkp://pgp.mit.edu
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <201511020506.37593.luke@dashjr.org>
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD
autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP 113: Median time-past is a HARDfork,
not 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: Mon, 02 Nov 2015 05:06:57 -0000
On Monday, November 02, 2015 4:27:50 AM jl2012@xbt.hk wrote:
> Currently, a tx maybe included in a block only if its locktime (x) is
> smaller than the timestamp of a block (y)
>
> BIP113 says that a tx maybe included in a block only if x is smaller
> than the median-time-past (z)
>
> It is already a consensus rule that y > z. Therefore, if x < z, x < y
>
> The new rule is absolutely stricter than the old rule, so it is a
> softfork. Anything wrong with my interpretation?
I agree, false alarm. Somehow I had confused the comparison of locktimes this
morning. :(
Sorry about that,
Luke
|
