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 4D4A11093 for ; Wed, 30 Dec 2015 10:33:41 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-ig0-f170.google.com (mail-ig0-f170.google.com [209.85.213.170]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A233313E for ; Wed, 30 Dec 2015 10:33:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ig0-f170.google.com with SMTP id to18so165218680igc.0 for ; Wed, 30 Dec 2015 02:33:40 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=z/cZzYQ9UXT3UO07VnaAIjDVbu7j9YU/X/rO/JWhbyg=; b=Dkm1J+IzCKF3GzwC+jTuFYjM0hvos5tNjPR5CRlHJLiDqRMr+O271HLCc+Zo2rOH9b jt9TzxTjD5QB1iSalx8Ephnrb1W/dviVJ5YAKGU4CfwU6Fml8/TVZfp/qwRTzvwuBk36 GFjQSl13vMBkywTlNSjlolVSTVzJhupaJjChTdSeZ8ZrGWYosOajDycNYEh0H3RFSlqe t8glAOzWUpCeWqW5H+9UAKGmj09j4lwkE3ZouvinVOKEnb4oIjNsuEpnJeieSSln3ZH0 mEeX9MgD7jGnDYK6GY60LqmEKIR1+moePfZZnOXW78aBollwVuVhPORg9w9OUuvvMPVu 5lyA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.50.160.43 with SMTP id xh11mr39697734igb.73.1451471619996; Wed, 30 Dec 2015 02:33:39 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.64.90.7 with HTTP; Wed, 30 Dec 2015 02:33:39 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <6fc10e581a81abb76be5cd49275ebf48@openmailbox.org> References: <6fc10e581a81abb76be5cd49275ebf48@openmailbox.org> Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2015 11:33:39 +0100 Message-ID: From: Marco Falke To: joe2015@openmailbox.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, 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 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 30 Dec 2015 14:12:33 +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 10:33:41 -0000 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