Yes, exactly. That's the point. As you well know I think the whole soft-fork mechanism is wrong and should not be used. If the rules change, your node is *supposed* to end up on a chain fork and trigger an alert to you, that's pretty much the whole purpose of Bitcoin's design. Undermining that security model is problematic.


On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 12:38 PM, Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256



Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org> wrote:
>On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 10:52:31AM +0100, Mike Hearn wrote:
>> For block 0x11 again shall there be a separate code for "block is
>from the
>> future"? We don't want to lose the nVersion field to people just
>using it
>> for nonsense, so does it make sense to reject blocks that claim to be
>v2 or
>> v3?
>
>That would prevent us from using nVersion as a soft-forking mechanism.

Actually, that statement didn't go far enough: rejecting blocks with nVersions that you don't expect is a hard fork.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: APG v1.0.9

iQFQBAEBCAA6BQJSb544MxxQZXRlciBUb2RkIChsb3cgc2VjdXJpdHkga2V5KSA8
cGV0ZUBwZXRlcnRvZGQub3JnPgAKCRAZnIM7qOfwhfuGCADHB+5WZ3oSRCCYgId+
5c4rxZHjjmXXIVOlXySjoRQ20JUnGbkUqN057VlutYbWaGV7OqR0oQyzh0LGpMdL
BU9hg8XoHbyIvA0WhCfEJvFzkwseN8Ac77UxtV3leBpBkSzjqlMS9QBGU6L5rw2U
uo8Sd7bQaqkadOPode3MMWDtmmqAZaj2dN02w/8C1rRna3SrbYRVYbaVAuN9yREO
99DOGEM2V7ni+eo4sQoxP2jf8vmNzy1EuQH8v1OloPgcpxl/GkLVXzQh4ZfO1ApE
UVKBo93oT34Tce9LwZy+k8XpeCvBRJ/+QwsbAAgdVYKr8KmRcAW4oR2KN7Y0jjq4
44xU
=OaON
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----