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 2C9DE941 for ; Thu, 31 Dec 2015 04:39:31 +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 5E7CC14E for ; Thu, 31 Dec 2015 04:39:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail2.openmailbox.org (Postfix, from userid 1004) id 7B2892AC546C; Thu, 31 Dec 2015 05:39:28 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=openmailbox.org; s=openmailbox; t=1451536768; bh=WG1d57qYQH3eRyr+N25Y5TWeSSdPe6M/U2bUQUXDNHQ=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=bhqT8I2QWQwDdLlZ+21qlIrg4GxuWlZ3O7DA2uTvYJFHGXehX7ynSZfMaR0hMZvml TANa5nast+Da7qNQqf7+zxDJx0da5QDLk5C4QhKoPVclHzehDwwOMNXTwWKjWSI4hd 5kS5NrVaK6Pd3UAUKu5QfjGeHwuKTfz93NQ12Vpk= 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-b2 [10.91.69.220]) by mail2.openmailbox.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C78142AC5EE7; Thu, 31 Dec 2015 05:39:25 +0100 (CET) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2015 12:39:25 +0800 From: joe2015@openmailbox.org To: Bob McElrath In-Reply-To: <20151231000442.GK18200@mcelrath.org> References: <1bf64a5b514d57ca37744ae5f5238149@openmailbox.org> <20151230190043.GJ18200@mcelrath.org> <16BFC301-58C1-49F9-B2E5-A2C09C82A8CA@toom.im> <20151231000442.GK18200@mcelrath.org> Message-ID: <5a479e307f84c6e8547287489cd134d1@openmailbox.org> X-Sender: joe2015@openmailbox.org User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.0.6 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 31 Dec 2015 06:48:00 +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 04:39:31 -0000 > So I'm very strongly against this "generalized softfork" idea -- I also > don't > see how upgraded nodes and non-upgraded nodes can possibly end up with > the same > UTXO set. The only way for non-upgraded nodes to get the correct UTXO set is to upgrade. It is important to keep in mind this was proposed as an alternative to a hardfork. With a hardfork the UTXOs also diverge as upgraded and non-upgraded clients follow different chains. --joe.