Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EE5D6F76 for ; 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 ; Thu, 31 Dec 2015 10:39:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pa0-f50.google.com with SMTP id yy13so58357373pab.3 for ; 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 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: References: <1bf64a5b514d57ca37744ae5f5238149@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 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-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 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