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 E044A941 for ; Fri, 27 Jan 2017 20:47:36 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from sender163-mail.zoho.com (sender163-mail.zoho.com [74.201.84.163]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5F64E17A for ; Fri, 27 Jan 2017 20:47:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.8.8.2] (119246245241.ctinets.com [119.246.245.241]) by mx.zohomail.com with SMTPS id 1485550047293203.3451733103085; Fri, 27 Jan 2017 12:47:27 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.2 \(3259\)) From: Johnson Lau In-Reply-To: <5276b225-0a90-8539-6024-17b74433cb29@thinlink.com> Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2017 04:47:22 +0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <3F2FDFFC-A73B-4C0F-A7B2-8449332BE70E@xbt.hk> <5276b225-0a90-8539-6024-17b74433cb29@thinlink.com> To: Tom Harding X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3259) X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE 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] Anti-transaction replay in a hardfork X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2017 20:47:37 -0000 > On 26 Jan 2017, at 03:32, Tom Harding wrote: >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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. >=20 > I suggest that the opt-out bits proposal comes from a more realistic = position that would actually make sense for everyone. >=20 I think there are some misunderstanding. You=E2=80=99d better read my = source code if my explanation is not clear. =46rom 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)=