Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 92BD7268 for ; Sat, 14 Nov 2015 22:47:33 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from smtprelay04.ispgateway.de (smtprelay04.ispgateway.de [80.67.18.16]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 03B4487 for ; Sat, 14 Nov 2015 22:47:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [89.14.30.64] (helo=anonymous) by smtprelay04.ispgateway.de with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from ) id 1ZxjbV-0002k6-Fc for bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org; Sat, 14 Nov 2015 23:47:29 +0100 From: xor To: Bitcoin development mailing list Reply-To: xor@freenetproject.org Date: Sat, 14 Nov 2015 23:47:23 +0100 Message-ID: <1910992.nPu4WaYHE8@1337h4x0r> Organization: Freenet Project User-Agent: KMail/4.13.3 (Linux/3.13.0-68-generic; KDE/4.13.3; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: References: <1581446.3ZPnhFUSFq@1337h4x0r> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart21621398.PSQUeYnAd1"; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Df-Sender: eG9yQGZyZWVtYWlsLmJvZ2VydC5kZQ== X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,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: Sat, 14 Nov 2015 23:20:18 +0000 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Contradiction in BIP65 text? X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 14 Nov 2015 22:47:33 -0000 --nextPart21621398.PSQUeYnAd1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" On Friday, November 13, 2015 06:58:07 PM Jeff Garzik wrote: > On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 4:48 PM, xor via bitcoin-dev < >=20 > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > This clearly says that funds can be frozen. > > Can the BIP65-thing be used to freeze funds or can it not be? >=20 > This language definitely trips up or worries several folks - it's bee= n > mentioned a few times before. >=20 > The user _chooses_ to freeze _their own_ funds. It is not an unwilli= ng act > of force, which many assume when they see the phrase "freeze funds." Oh, interesting, albeit that was not subject of my question. My question in fact was whether *I* can use it to freeze *my* funds; be= cause I=20 think that would be an interesting feature for various purposes. From=20the state of BIP65 I talked about, it is not even clear whether th= at is=20 possible. Your observation beyond that is a valid concern though. So both should be addressed. --nextPart21621398.PSQUeYnAd1 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part. Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAABCAAGBQJWR7n+AAoJEMtmZ+8tjWt5VzwQAJmy4m5w0ZZWg6SwpvzwI563 e+ZWZ2aYeolUmCIfifviiNJZowHXcytXpOhOJsZg03DtVUBsx3hUub8HA+qos0gY oSr0hyweYHc0//kdQEhRR8QJ1m+xbvQacTTpA3D0V60D1+2ZSGqg9jszIgBq6sZn OMfH+grQ8Kie1jNgf/jVCUQHYKZ+A9O213Ar/x5mW9/idiHwkCX/HYQ6Dfbhmuhw qIGI6AnvvaYrygnfO660Ifoy6D0bvLGfGrfIGToit2KTiupdsFDxWEgl0uYUyVCo 8rrG6qtVtu09TP/tv5BHR5GcexvrdAJKV7SLsduFsr5rB9eRHAfatORukWFw4+5C RK853dKc1E4H1LUroY0+lOf1LVSbcMITYVmZ7sTprBCgIpVsacSojDJMPMEIaLq8 jYJzu3+WspBn/yP0pQ/1NEbWskq4eQBfpInkWO+7aF7N+dsk1JOgI3KHsgAkqlSO ypYRUhYWj828aT4I1piJ0JqJynefXXI6YTAeqNYGpdl6angMrXTP3ADXKzFOH3UV pUQqU2/E5gKY83zKSNGl9iz4QCFKuZF90AbcGcqrBZbs42UnCQ/UcnRoL4Y5RWXE V+DftranGNII4JTOHjrAySN97piQhQZIUXW78EB4f6HtUQmJPZAOzvk9Q4raoGOP 9Oe4aLB+ci15py58FHex =Rg+O -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart21621398.PSQUeYnAd1--