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 71597127E for ; 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 ; 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 In-Reply-To: References: <6fc10e581a81abb76be5cd49275ebf48@openmailbox.org> 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-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.