From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6AE978F0 for ; 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 ; 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 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-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