Peter Todd [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: š Original date posted:2013-10-29 š Original message:On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at ...
š
Original date posted:2013-10-29
š Original message:On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 10:52:31AM +0100, Mike Hearn wrote:
> For block 0x11 again shall there be a separate code for "block is from the
> future"? We don't want to lose the nVersion field to people just using it
> for nonsense, so does it make sense to reject blocks that claim to be v2 or
> v3?
That would prevent us from using nVersion as a soft-forking mechanism.
--
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
000000000000000908fddb47210344de50e6d3bd842e649c68853eeee0390dcd
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 685 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20131029/c357d271/attachment.sig>;
š Original message:On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 10:52:31AM +0100, Mike Hearn wrote:
> For block 0x11 again shall there be a separate code for "block is from the
> future"? We don't want to lose the nVersion field to people just using it
> for nonsense, so does it make sense to reject blocks that claim to be v2 or
> v3?
That would prevent us from using nVersion as a soft-forking mechanism.
--
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
000000000000000908fddb47210344de50e6d3bd842e649c68853eeee0390dcd
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 685 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20131029/c357d271/attachment.sig>;