Adam Back [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2015-09-30 📝 Original message:I was talking about the ...
📅 Original date posted:2015-09-30
📝 Original message:I was talking about the versionBits from Rusty's email (pasted below) and
simplifying that by XT adopting the patch as Gavin had seemed agreeable to.
Adam
Rusty wrote:
> Agreed. Unfortunately, a simple "block version >= 4" check is
> insufficient, due to XT which sets version bits 001....111.
>
> Given that, I suggest using the simple test:
>
> if (pstart->nVersion & 0x8)
> ++nFound;
>
> Which means:
> 1) XT won't trigger it.
> 2) It won't trigger XT.
> 3) You can simply set block nVersion to 8 for now.
> 4) We can still use versionbits in parallel later.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150930/5fec4b01/attachment.html>
📝 Original message:I was talking about the versionBits from Rusty's email (pasted below) and
simplifying that by XT adopting the patch as Gavin had seemed agreeable to.
Adam
Rusty wrote:
> Agreed. Unfortunately, a simple "block version >= 4" check is
> insufficient, due to XT which sets version bits 001....111.
>
> Given that, I suggest using the simple test:
>
> if (pstart->nVersion & 0x8)
> ++nFound;
>
> Which means:
> 1) XT won't trigger it.
> 2) It won't trigger XT.
> 3) You can simply set block nVersion to 8 for now.
> 4) We can still use versionbits in parallel later.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150930/5fec4b01/attachment.html>