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
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
|
Return-Path: <digitsu@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EE5D6F76
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 31 Dec 2015 10:39:44 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-pa0-f50.google.com (mail-pa0-f50.google.com
[209.85.220.50])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A49C012C
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 31 Dec 2015 10:39:44 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-pa0-f50.google.com with SMTP id yy13so58357373pab.3
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 31 Dec 2015 02:39:44 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc
:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to;
bh=5p5x0ehx14RiYvGXJX564EkfmVtkxHPY6GYTXo4r+x8=;
b=zqkf1kxyq0hlc53BdoXHu+kk70U72ENz97FUcypCfaGGCIEzJLaO3385tUsJn9B+3t
RN7/VLCRmNYLQEwv5wzZPrnEi7xwGbflG6r6ZyHq3EDBkO1H5ce1CkIPvmr50JnW+zFX
APdsadgujYKRegSphac5OxOP4RbL96jK1DvTeXR+QKlZE3CLcpjdmPDKjmv/H5tbXJLt
d1xEQJDxwF/rbEr1AdVG+ceYVZh+KwT4oxODJX76qWh987CBlWZA29L3FyRiKBXuHMaD
3Bm0nekZLi0CT9mYdOIXukKbdPLGsnCkXK0t9RBa5nq6QABOKoDdhLuHFl8sd9hod1z6
HPUQ==
X-Received: by 10.66.152.204 with SMTP id va12mr17169664pab.0.1451558384457;
Thu, 31 Dec 2015 02:39:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.70.213.227] (124x33x172x65.ap124.ftth.ucom.ne.jp.
[124.33.172.65]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id
yn8sm100951009pac.32.2015.12.31.02.39.43
(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER);
Thu, 31 Dec 2015 02:39:43 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
From: David Chan <digitsu@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (13C75)
In-Reply-To: <5a479e307f84c6e8547287489cd134d1@openmailbox.org>
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2015 19:39:41 +0900
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <AD5B1866-BB14-4752-9E0E-88651D8FEE97@gmail.com>
References: <1bf64a5b514d57ca37744ae5f5238149@openmailbox.org>
<e170f3a10164019824edaafe5a04f067@xbt.hk>
<f9ad1348fb7dedca35b594782fee7e0f@openmailbox.org>
<20151230190043.GJ18200@mcelrath.org>
<16BFC301-58C1-49F9-B2E5-A2C09C82A8CA@toom.im>
<20151231000442.GK18200@mcelrath.org>
<5a479e307f84c6e8547287489cd134d1@openmailbox.org>
To: joe2015@openmailbox.org
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE,
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: Thu, 31 Dec 2015 14:40:11 +0000
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Increasing the blocksize as a (generalized)
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: Thu, 31 Dec 2015 10:39:45 -0000
The UTXO sets may diverge but they actually will be strict subsets/supersets=
of each other as no transaction would be invalid on one fork vs another unl=
ess the hard fork lasts longer than 100 blocks.=20
This is of course specific to a block limit change hard fork.=20
On 2015/12/31, at 13:39, joe2015--- via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linux=
foundation.org> wrote:
>> So I'm very strongly against this "generalized softfork" idea -- I also d=
on't
>> see how upgraded nodes and non-upgraded nodes can possibly end up with th=
e same
>> UTXO set.
>=20
> The only way for non-upgraded nodes to get the correct UTXO set is to upgr=
ade.
>=20
> It is important to keep in mind this was proposed as an alternative to a h=
ardfork. With a hardfork the UTXOs also diverge as upgraded and non-upgrade=
d clients follow different chains.
>=20
> --joe.
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
|
