From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <joe2015@openmailbox.org>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
	[172.17.192.35])
	by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2C9DE941
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	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 <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	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 <bob_bitcoin@mcelrath.org>
In-Reply-To: <20151231000442.GK18200@mcelrath.org>
References: <1bf64a5b514d57ca37744ae5f5238149@openmailbox.org>
	<e170f3a10164019824edaafe5a04f067@xbt.hk>
	<f9ad1348fb7dedca35b594782fee7e0f@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 <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
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 <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=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.