Re: [bitcoin-dev] Anti-transaction replay in a hardfork

[Johnson Lau <jl2012@xbt.hk>]

> On 26 Jan 2017, at 03:32, Tom Harding <tomh@thinlink.com> wrote:
> 
> On 1/24/2017 8:03 PM, Johnson Lau wrote:
>> it seems they are not the same: yours is opt-out, while mine is opt-in.
> 
> I missed this.  So in fact you propose a self-defeating requirement on the new network, which would force unmodified yet otherwise compatible systems to change to support the new network at all. This is unlikely to be included in new network designs.
> 
> I suggest that the opt-out bits proposal comes from a more realistic position that would actually make sense for everyone.
> 

I think there are some misunderstanding. You’d better read my source code if my explanation is not clear.

From my understanding our proposals are the same, just with a bitwise not (~) before the network characteristic byte. So you set a bit to opt-out a network, while I set a bit to opt-in a network (and opt-out any other)