📅 Original date posted:2015-12-21
📝 Original message:On 2015-12-21 12:23, jl2012 wrote:
> I proposed something very similar 2 years ago:
> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=283746.0
Yes there are similarities but also some important differences. See my
response here:
http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-December/012085.html
In short my proposal is compatible with conventional blocksize limit
hardfork ideas, like BIP101, BIP202, 2-4-8 etc. etc.
> This is an interesting academic idea. But the way you implement it
> will immediately kill all existing full and SPV nodes (not really
> dead, rather like zombie as they can't send and receive any tx).
That's the whole point. After a conventional hardfork everyone needs to
upgrade, but there is no way to force users to upgrade. A user who is
simply unaware of the fork, or disagrees with the fork, uses the old
client and the currency splits.
Under this proposal old clients effectively enter "zombie" mode, forcing
users to upgrade.
--joe
joe2015 at openmailbox.org [ARCHIVE] /
npub1gw…hphxp
2023-06-07 17:47:14
in reply to nevent1q…7xvn
Author Public Key
npub1gwmm2y87243ku554j225754cr4ld7zmy5uajdkpmgd9cnvaey7cs4hphxpPublished at
2023-06-07 17:47:14Event JSON
{
"id": "eb3aa8a31f125620989ddee7475297187611987d6c8e35b772cca7cc6b1a89b5",
"pubkey": "43b7b510fe55636e529592954f52b81d7edf0b64a73b26d83b434b89b3b927b1",
"created_at": 1686160034,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"cff63604c5ea2135194b6bb6cc24978162ba68b9dba72176ba103744f1094f89",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"92fbf38508a9552251c1513e0f3db3de1fe68216cfe4787f911c4467d2c6c8c8",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"ab1c85bd5ad443631a95b228bd1630bf7acdb27f6de01a960ccfbb077831d7ec"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-12-21\n📝 Original message:On 2015-12-21 12:23, jl2012 wrote:\n\u003e I proposed something very similar 2 years ago:\n\u003e https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=283746.0\n\nYes there are similarities but also some important differences. See my \nresponse here: \nhttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-December/012085.html\n\nIn short my proposal is compatible with conventional blocksize limit \nhardfork ideas, like BIP101, BIP202, 2-4-8 etc. etc.\n\n\u003e This is an interesting academic idea. But the way you implement it\n\u003e will immediately kill all existing full and SPV nodes (not really\n\u003e dead, rather like zombie as they can't send and receive any tx).\n\nThat's the whole point. After a conventional hardfork everyone needs to \nupgrade, but there is no way to force users to upgrade. A user who is \nsimply unaware of the fork, or disagrees with the fork, uses the old \nclient and the currency splits.\n\nUnder this proposal old clients effectively enter \"zombie\" mode, forcing \nusers to upgrade.\n\n--joe",
"sig": "e15f90b8af0ff3034f837f3a3db8a2df5723534332ce20de6150a0a97ee26a0c7a39cf0684ff82619464c03b86f59eb922f014de9e4c0484005415e706d241e9"
}