📅 Original date posted:2017-01-24
📝 Original message:On 1/24/2017 6:33 AM, Johnson Lau via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> 9. If the network characteristic byte is non-zero, and the existing
> network characteristic bit is set, the masked version is used to
> determine whether a transaction should be mined or relayed (policy change)
Johnson,
Your proposal supports 8 opt-out bits compatible with may earlier
description:
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2016-July/012917.html.
If the existing network really wants to play along, it should execute a
soft fork as soon as possible to support its own hard-fork opt-out bit
("network characteristic bit"). It is totally inadequate for a new
network to rely on non-standardness in the existing network to prevent
replay there. Instead, in the absence of a supported opt-out bit in the
existing network, a responsible new network would allow something that
is invalid in the existing network, for transactions where replay to the
existing network is undesirable.
It is an overreach for your BIP to suggest specific changes to be
included in the new network, such as the specific O(n^2) fix you
suggest. This is a matter for the new network itself.
Tom Harding [ARCHIVE] /
npub1ms…pmwjy
2023-06-07 17:55:37
in reply to nevent1q…j3qn
Author Public Key
npub1msef5qkfwz4t7qacwxz775wgdtlytph78g2g2z903x90874u263sypmwjyPublished at
2023-06-07 17:55:37Event JSON
{
"id": "3597f81f4011fadd8e0d67ae689d62749c8ddd48bda55660621740c38b910ec2",
"pubkey": "dc329a02c970aabf03b87185ef51c86afe4586fe3a148508af898af3fabc56a3",
"created_at": 1686160537,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"08564427a86ede87bab23151dbcfb043a11ce80299dd31e312bfe1aa29950657",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"fb1457041d78b9efd7add1d27ab4968c38080e4a1785b32c692cd9f36a8aefd8",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"492fa402e838904bdc8eb2c8fafa1aa895df26438bfd998c71b01cb9db550ff7"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2017-01-24\n📝 Original message:On 1/24/2017 6:33 AM, Johnson Lau via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e 9. If the network characteristic byte is non-zero, and the existing\n\u003e network characteristic bit is set, the masked version is used to\n\u003e determine whether a transaction should be mined or relayed (policy change)\n\nJohnson,\n\nYour proposal supports 8 opt-out bits compatible with may earlier\ndescription:\nhttps://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2016-July/012917.html.\n\nIf the existing network really wants to play along, it should execute a\nsoft fork as soon as possible to support its own hard-fork opt-out bit\n(\"network characteristic bit\"). It is totally inadequate for a new\nnetwork to rely on non-standardness in the existing network to prevent\nreplay there. Instead, in the absence of a supported opt-out bit in the\nexisting network, a responsible new network would allow something that\nis invalid in the existing network, for transactions where replay to the\nexisting network is undesirable.\n\nIt is an overreach for your BIP to suggest specific changes to be\nincluded in the new network, such as the specific O(n^2) fix you\nsuggest. This is a matter for the new network itself.",
"sig": "5a96072f5961ef8b8c06f3f391904dfeb9ca37f73e89fc8208658f281a1b5ffeef25e79e0ee6cd4c47e0b45d2d31d2a12e512ff28feefa0c6bfae553e1c6118f"
}