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 29512ACC for ; Sat, 27 Jun 2015 17:36:51 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-ie0-f173.google.com (mail-ie0-f173.google.com [209.85.223.173]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B7140198 for ; Sat, 27 Jun 2015 17:36:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: by iebrt9 with SMTP id rt9so93259191ieb.2 for ; Sat, 27 Jun 2015 10:36:50 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=0HkXYnSI2uXCB/5Cqd3DzsKjWhbrgPdc636QGQAAi+o=; b=NzPKstfPPca6xXRl2iHJvBSfrjurq/Qa0s/YhfYNkAOEZ3ZCYdu/OVC/BFDaSL5njB 6A8S0C2rhubxJSrDXD7/tEzl7yRGZ045GFAnEJN/z4wm59OF7kFmZIJMipswVl52EOD1 Yp8n8867QdIJDI3s8QWnjdMfri7cY42eBV2FvTZ5Xd3KUU7GRmFzgdYgh+PalrnePBLP yaChQD1wnvaYRzy2F7HJyYchaVSiXnVe/WA4ozVEXcmdLp3vh+62w+yA1Vsg1fb+WMG3 3LfIte2y+vFB9FEOjjl+msNCr9aJxiNdxzOPU3IJkvFj99JKlrEuiBUiFb51RZwA3WAL yPHg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.43.171.70 with SMTP id nt6mr9072712icc.73.1435426610296; Sat, 27 Jun 2015 10:36:50 -0700 (PDT) Sender: bernd.jendrissek@gmail.com Received: by 10.107.138.25 with HTTP; Sat, 27 Jun 2015 10:36:50 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <558EBCB7.9050100@trek.io> References: <558EBCB7.9050100@trek.io> Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2015 19:36:50 +0200 X-Google-Sender-Auth: elk9NNaSWwOXRzLvGnFm_GqIweI Message-ID: From: Bernd Jendrissek To: will binns Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, FREEMAIL_FROM, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Block Size Debate Analogy / Workaround: Bitcoin is Like Windows 3.11 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: Sat, 27 Jun 2015 17:36:51 -0000 > In some ways, however, to me at > least - Bitcoin is like Windows 3.11. [...] > Now there is a huge debate about if there > should ever be a Windows 95, XP, Pro, etc., that scales better and makes > advances over time, but doesn=E2=80=99t support facets of older versions = as it gets > updated. I like your analogy for how it frames blockchain compatibility in terms of the backward compatibility that hopefully most computer-literate people already understand, but there's a key ingredient missing. It's as if, if everyone in the world did somehow upgrade to Windows 95, it would become forever impossible to take a program written *on* Windows 95 but *for* Windows 3.11, and successfully run it on a Windows 3.11 computer. It would be as if cross-compilers from Windows 95 to Windows 3.11 didn't, and couldn't, exist. Any coins that have post-hardfork coinbase outputs anywhere in their tree of inputs (a Windows 3.11 program, that's written on a computer that has ever run a Windows 95 program) can never be spent on the no-change side of the fork.