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 197C8C5B for ; Fri, 14 Apr 2017 20:51:06 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-oi0-f48.google.com (mail-oi0-f48.google.com [209.85.218.48]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7F41ED4 for ; Fri, 14 Apr 2017 20:51:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-oi0-f48.google.com with SMTP id b187so100779939oif.0 for ; Fri, 14 Apr 2017 13:51:05 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Hbox2Gcj+gEiCy7bMtNqZyrv6gycUP8DloOPIM1BCqk=; b=W3N+E1azurhCziZOcHj17fqAExHWXSZoX5VrdJsrwFpKW/gyG8luRpRFk+FZeMSYXs jdZYsvnaadwMRrlg5ia2ybbRO+U28dN8/GqoQHrH3aCv+Nlpdyz9+cP0aXW6ypc/eDX9 /NoqZFXrirQLeVuTB/UEOTahxILRG57YbB547Cx9gtcf56QXbb/XHGI04QTpD8OAqdpH v4du59Sk9o8O0OG6b2VcuOhrLWIKFVkzLPTC6f8Hhcretq2XaTiX8vGSiwtABgMCvpLZ Pd1/u4T0YgHg6fNqCfHptnd6zYJJyzt5+3B3udBKFd5scxAKe1JS62WDeVGAvzE2pHTE MHnw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Hbox2Gcj+gEiCy7bMtNqZyrv6gycUP8DloOPIM1BCqk=; b=bpUhq49MscW/OlTX+u5clV4rtWrmTFvHkwrdkepvYLVQLH58jPOS/6yLI1aVY6Vqmz 4mKyz9SQ0mtAIfnMLx/cRWqG1/bePHvYfNcvZFarkiMGGEHnlEvsbMqrnIqLMZgI8XcI h1pmgcmNWfBQQ7cniLojs+ek9rBdGV8We99inL28MSKsg5uPKPuFGK4QcXo7RXVbajSZ krM7Y+mE3dpGki9H1MU032B8aqiS8TMo64MDmt4UZrPtO1CZwAN+j8LGryPIMne8te4c nsDQ/OnJw/MGZUGlFmwRt1bGvS8AtJQXHY8422zh7ZPdrAfneguW8o2A57jMaLGI9NTT l8Lg== X-Gm-Message-State: AN3rC/42+8rVdnkN9oHzi94DInrDgIeWX6r3i9iSG9JbhXx+aUWjOiWe 5GOWa0XXlAcZA5DZoaSM4ODUT5csmog1 X-Received: by 10.157.63.169 with SMTP id r38mr5921983otc.223.1492203064826; Fri, 14 Apr 2017 13:51:04 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.182.116.74 with HTTP; Fri, 14 Apr 2017 13:51:04 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <2983024.JOGDlViq2a@cherry> References: <1521038.c5zslb6dar@cherry> <2983024.JOGDlViq2a@cherry> From: James Hilliard Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2017 15:51:04 -0500 Message-ID: To: Tom Zander Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT,FREEMAIL_FROM, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM autolearn=no version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] I do not support the BIP 148 UASF X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2017 20:51:06 -0000 On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 3:34 PM, Tom Zander wrote: > On Friday, 14 April 2017 21:33:49 CEST James Hilliard wrote: >> This is false, >> >> Those "everyone can spend" transactions are prohibited from being >> mined due to policy rules. > > I expected you to know this, but ok, I'll explain. > > A policy rule is not a protocol rule, a mining node is certainly not > guarenteet to have it, and those that do typically make it configurable. Yes one can override policy rules and mine invalid SW transactions, but that's not something that's likely to happen accidentally. > > If you depend on one implementation and user configuration for the avoidance > of chain forks, you are going to have a hard time. We don't depend on policy to avoid chain forks, policy however is quite useful for making forks smoother since it can prevent miners from accidentally mining invalid blocks and prevents users from accepting invalid transactions accidentally. This doesn't remove the need for consensus rule enforcement of course. > > Thanks for your thoughtful reply, though. > -- > Tom Zander > Blog: https://zander.github.io > Vlog: https://vimeo.com/channels/tomscryptochannel