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 71597127E
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Wed, 30 Dec 2015 16:28:04 +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 94F75162
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Wed, 30 Dec 2015 16:28:03 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail2.openmailbox.org (Postfix, from userid 1004)
	id DB9002AC49B6; Wed, 30 Dec 2015 17:28:01 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=openmailbox.org;
	s=openmailbox; t=1451492881;
	bh=WP5QPLB0vEhvEw0/ekZf1PYmUYXQk452AoBiyEQHNx4=;
	h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=eN3RrjJN3iEg8r9WtXKBGFNdNgikEzudbGkv+2nJiDXgWRPkiZJZNdd7xikP2XE0V
	IG3fyYyrj9jXwOWC9Nd43UjXEe5UhbLL7boN0oNuGfXEVz4MxzFmzvOq9XKc2SvRNc
	bbeN0p8UcuM2bu6166euK6KklqenVRNFi5IROSVE=
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 8246A2AC4CC1;
	Wed, 30 Dec 2015 17:27:50 +0100 (CET)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII;
 format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2015 00:27:50 +0800
From: joe2015@openmailbox.org
To: Marco Falke <falke.marco@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKJqnrGUKeUb7g4SrjnWNAcPZOuLDKB-kjP2+Jy8Rdk_MfWLyQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <6fc10e581a81abb76be5cd49275ebf48@openmailbox.org>
	<CAKJqnrGUKeUb7g4SrjnWNAcPZOuLDKB-kjP2+Jy8Rdk_MfWLyQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <814e1ba765445a4c3b7364c471299393@openmailbox.org>
X-Sender: joe2015@openmailbox.org
User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.0.6
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 30 Dec 2015 16:34:50 +0000
Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] An implementation of BIP102 as a 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: Wed, 30 Dec 2015 16:28:04 -0000

On 2015-12-30 18:33, Marco Falke wrote:
> This is an interesting approach but I don't see how this is a soft
> fork. (Just because something is not a hard fork, doesn't make it a
> soft fork by definition)
> Softforks don't require any nodes to upgrade. [1]
> Nonetheless, as I understand your approach, it requires nodes to
> upgrade. Otherwise they are missing all transactions but the coinbase
> transactions. Thus, they cannot update their utxoset and are easily
> susceptible to double spends...
> 
> Am I missing something obvious?
> 
> -- Marco
> 
> 
> [1] https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Softfork#Implications

It just depends how you define "softfork".  In my original write-up I 
called it a "generalized" softfork, Peter suggested a "firm" fork, and 
there are some suggestions for other names.  Ultimately what you call it 
is not very important.

--joe.