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 E32F7117E for ; Thu, 31 Dec 2015 11:32:24 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail2.openmailbox.org (mail2.openmailbox.org [62.4.1.33]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F0E6A1BF for ; Thu, 31 Dec 2015 11:32:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail2.openmailbox.org (Postfix, from userid 1004) id B87252AC454F; Thu, 31 Dec 2015 12:32:21 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=openmailbox.org; s=openmailbox; t=1451561541; bh=3AsHdxBFri1yQqSaGXPxLbMa6u7df473JYvP2jVN+LM=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=EwNNPObUM3NNw61ufQbGJaaBT8qDFa/cmHodmZnLs6D/1bvY34HwFwteO7qLkQCwq FtfSv2NZJVqxSdKnsMTX+7mAxPyzcYCopIgNlbFQ62IOv63oJ6Iyu64+yrrPC/6pjm JS+977kP4tJgcUKtFb6sd8IdDtFozPUOiwxhmhwU= X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW, RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 Received: from www.openmailbox.org (openmailbox-b1 [10.91.69.218]) by mail2.openmailbox.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E58D2AC454F; Thu, 31 Dec 2015 12:32:20 +0100 (CET) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2015 19:32:20 +0800 From: joe2015@openmailbox.org To: David Chan In-Reply-To: References: <1bf64a5b514d57ca37744ae5f5238149@openmailbox.org> <20151230190043.GJ18200@mcelrath.org> <16BFC301-58C1-49F9-B2E5-A2C09C82A8CA@toom.im> <20151231000442.GK18200@mcelrath.org> <5a479e307f84c6e8547287489cd134d1@openmailbox.org> Message-ID: <493d1863b74fb81e8890b6e75c1199cd@openmailbox.org> X-Sender: joe2015@openmailbox.org User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.0.6 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 31 Dec 2015 14:39:47 +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 11:32:25 -0000 On 2015-12-31 18:39, David Chan wrote: > 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 unless the hard fork lasts longer than 100 blocks. The UTXO sets can also diverge thanks to double spends, i.e. A->B is confirmed on the old chain and A->C is confirmed on the new. --joe.