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 C45142278 for ; Mon, 5 Oct 2015 12:30:00 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-qk0-f177.google.com (mail-qk0-f177.google.com [209.85.220.177]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4370412D for ; Mon, 5 Oct 2015 12:30:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: by qkcf65 with SMTP id f65so67614222qkc.3 for ; Mon, 05 Oct 2015 05:29:59 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=zAIrKQ6pM4vLYleDtSrb3MDBqqd4899Z21ytWcCkFag=; b=GAKY88k7B+CI4G1GPhKPryd8Q7vcwmh1Xo8UWV19/BkMbQHJnJhiHRRhL5ozClswQ2 PHrqLKuyZVppds0Wxai53Pfxu6Onbz4TSeHZLjth0fm8LHa0+HK7Wi7KkPVD9z7DgkY9 n/QNxukiDGmY6OJBS6TlaVX/Y4vp818hujBdjF4wfhLhz22rAjiVmNUEd73bEz/Muw/r 8ZhkKdEWmOzpnxg3w4+POksOLmu0KOa5I18K0FYbdW8c+niybOtyC5/KpaybXmPSw4CN sDohzHH5PdBM8Q9vi9GX9AvQjydOUF4nRB+naP9bbYo/X42dcz36UiNzQHb+0vht6YWe mrqg== X-Received: by 10.55.198.4 with SMTP id b4mr23753441qkj.13.1444048199519; Mon, 05 Oct 2015 05:29:59 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: =?UTF-8?Q?Cl=C3=A9ment_Elbaz?= Date: Mon, 05 Oct 2015 12:29:49 +0000 Message-ID: To: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11499ceef8945505215aab30 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,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 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Let's deploy BIP65 CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY! 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: Mon, 05 Oct 2015 12:30:01 -0000 --001a11499ceef8945505215aab30 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I fail to see how the number of confirmations has anything to do with it. With a non-upgraded Bitcoin software during a soft fork, you get the same blocks as everyone else, and you get the same confirmed transactions as everyone else. So you do have the exact same "writings" as everyone else to calculate your balance. The problem is that some transactions that are meaningless to you are actually meaningful to people using an upgraded Bitcoin software. Therefore during a softfork, while you can not miss the *existence* of a transaction, you can miss its *meaning*. If Bitcoin was just a decentralized whiteboard for people to write on it, that would be no problem. But as soon as you try to actually use Bitcoin (that is, calculate the accurate balance of a wallet in a very broad sense), you can be led a wrong result if you did not upgrade, which is a critical problem for financial software. And because nothing prevent people to send you transactions of a new type, you have no way to "opt out" of this problem. Le lun. 5 oct. 2015 =C3=A0 14:16, Jorge Tim=C3=B3n a =C3= =A9crit : > > On Oct 5, 2015 2:08 PM, "Cl=C3=A9ment Elbaz" wrote: > > > > It will get correct results about : > > - the existence every block > > - the existence of every transaction > > > > It will get incorrect results : > > - about the nature of some transactions > > Given the assumptions above, only of transactions without enough > confirmations. > > > - and therefore, about the balances of some wallets. > > Not if the wallet waits for enough confirmations. > --001a11499ceef8945505215aab30 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I fail to see how the number of confirmations has anything= to do with it.

With a non-upgraded Bitcoin software dur= ing a soft fork, you get the same blocks as everyone else, and you get the = same confirmed transactions as everyone else. So you do have the exact same= "writings" as everyone else to calculate your balance.

The problem is that some transactions that are meaningless = to you are actually meaningful to people using an upgraded Bitcoin software= .

Therefore during a softfork, while you can not m= iss the existence of a transaction, you can miss its meaning.= =C2=A0

If Bitcoin was just a decentralized whitebo= ard for people to write on it, that would be no problem.

But as soon as you try to actually use Bitcoin (that is, calculate t= he accurate balance of a wallet in a very broad sense), you can be led a wr= ong result if you did not upgrade, which is a critical problem for financia= l software.

And because nothing prevent people to = send you transactions of a new type, you have no way to "opt out"= of this problem.



Le=C2=A0lun. 5 oct. 2015 =C3=A0=C2=A014:1= 6, Jorge Tim=C3=B3n <jtimon@jtimon.cc> a =C3=A9crit=C2=A0:
<= blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px= #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">


On Oct 5, 2015 2:08 PM, "Cl=C3=A9ment Elbaz" <clem.ds@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> It will get correct results about :
> - the existence every block
> - the existence of every transaction
>
> It will get incorrect results :
> - about the nature of some transactions

Given the assumptions above, only of transactions without en= ough confirmations.

> - and therefore, about the balances of some wallets.

Not if the wallet waits for enough confirmations.

--001a11499ceef8945505215aab30--