joe2015 at openmailbox.org [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2015-12-30 📝 Original message:On 2015-12-30 18:33, Marco ...
📅 Original date posted:2015-12-30
📝 Original message:On 2015-12-30 18:33, Marco Falke wrote:
> This is an interesting approach but I don't see how this is a soft
> fork. (Just because something is not a hard fork, doesn't make it a
> soft fork by definition)
> Softforks don't require any nodes to upgrade. [1]
> Nonetheless, as I understand your approach, it requires nodes to
> upgrade. Otherwise they are missing all transactions but the coinbase
> transactions. Thus, they cannot update their utxoset and are easily
> susceptible to double spends...
>
> Am I missing something obvious?
>
> -- Marco
>
>
> [1] https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Softfork#Implications
It just depends how you define "softfork". In my original write-up I
called it a "generalized" softfork, Peter suggested a "firm" fork, and
there are some suggestions for other names. Ultimately what you call it
is not very important.
--joe.
📝 Original message:On 2015-12-30 18:33, Marco Falke wrote:
> This is an interesting approach but I don't see how this is a soft
> fork. (Just because something is not a hard fork, doesn't make it a
> soft fork by definition)
> Softforks don't require any nodes to upgrade. [1]
> Nonetheless, as I understand your approach, it requires nodes to
> upgrade. Otherwise they are missing all transactions but the coinbase
> transactions. Thus, they cannot update their utxoset and are easily
> susceptible to double spends...
>
> Am I missing something obvious?
>
> -- Marco
>
>
> [1] https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Softfork#Implications
It just depends how you define "softfork". In my original write-up I
called it a "generalized" softfork, Peter suggested a "firm" fork, and
there are some suggestions for other names. Ultimately what you call it
is not very important.
--joe.