From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <dan@osc.co.cr>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
	[172.17.192.35])
	by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 58C33B49
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Fri, 15 Sep 2017 21:49:00 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail.osc.co.cr (unknown [168.235.79.83])
	by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 14CE5442
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Fri, 15 Sep 2017 21:48:59 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [192.168.2.225] (miner1 [71.94.45.245])
	(using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits))
	(No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: danda)
	by mail.osc.co.cr (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DAA0B3D6A8;
	Fri, 15 Sep 2017 14:48:58 -0700 (PDT)
To: Simone Bronzini <simone.bronzini@chainside.net>,
	Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>,
	ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
References: <9e212eae-08d5-d083-80d9-a8e29679fcdc@osc.co.cr>
	<SU02clg--S4TtIK4TZIytgdnHE8SzXBwSEb_FN5edtPAaojLwCEd6OTNkBUrDiH1FwHPuD4D5yByE7r4Fz_-CVzzU9KK0xvmDGlWNxTp3aU=@protonmail.com>
	<9a541ba8-7c25-fdbb-505f-6426f61bdc63@osc.co.cr>
	<0c98e067-dff3-988b-af66-7c624de3eef4@chainside.net>
From: Dan Libby <dan@osc.co.cr>
Message-ID: <97b3b1a4-f588-65c7-d5cf-e8110ec3e4b5@osc.co.cr>
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2017 14:48:57 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
	Thunderbird/52.2.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <0c98e067-dff3-988b-af66-7c624de3eef4@chainside.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.3 required=5.0 tests=RDNS_NONE autolearn=disabled
	version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
	smtp1.linux-foundation.org
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sat, 16 Sep 2017 12:19:28 +0000
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] hypothetical: Could soft-forks be prevented?
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol 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: Fri, 15 Sep 2017 21:49:00 -0000

On 09/15/2017 01:40 PM, Simone Bronzini wrote:
> Since a soft-fork is a restriction of the consensus rules, I think the
> only way to have an un-soft-forkable cryptocurrency is creating a
> cryptocurrency where no transaction is valid.
> 
> Imagine I build a very minimal cryptocurrency where in the transaction
> output you only indicate the public key to send your coins to and the
> amount. One can still soft-fork it by deciding that, from now on, only
> even amounts are valid or only public keys that are a multiple of 10 are
> valid.

sure, but in this scenario how would one meaningfully "upgrade" the
functionality, eg add a new opcode?  We couldn't, right?  so....
success!   Preventing new functionality is the primary goal of this
thought experiment.  I believe that common sense and market incentives
would prevent arbitrary tightening of the rules for no good reason...