š
Original date posted:2015-12-31
š Original message:The UTXO sets may diverge but they actually will be strict subsets/supersets of each other as no transaction would be invalid on one fork vs another unless the hard fork lasts longer than 100 blocks.
This is of course specific to a block limit change hard fork.
On 2015/12/31, at 13:39, joe2015--- via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>> So I'm very strongly against this "generalized softfork" idea -- I also don't
>> see how upgraded nodes and non-upgraded nodes can possibly end up with the same
>> UTXO set.
>
> The only way for non-upgraded nodes to get the correct UTXO set is to upgrade.
>
> It is important to keep in mind this was proposed as an alternative to a hardfork. With a hardfork the UTXOs also diverge as upgraded and non-upgraded clients follow different chains.
>
> --joe.
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
David Chan [ARCHIVE] /
npub14xā¦4w5v8
2023-06-07 17:47:15
in reply to nevent1qā¦3tmc
Author Public Key
npub14xdxsc76lm5tg3c0rcw5gy54uurg7ypug4tgvltm4qrxsrfmaugs04w5v8Seen on
wss://relay.nostr.bandPublished at
2023-06-07 17:47:15Event JSON
{
"id": "6b8b6d6260f95be87ca3927a775e3f5e0b3bf4778a4616d0c9a9db332fbedafe",
"pubkey": "a99a6863dafee8b4470f1e1d441295e7068f103c4556867d7ba806680d3bef11",
"created_at": 1686160035,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"cff63604c5ea2135194b6bb6cc24978162ba68b9dba72176ba103744f1094f89",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"d25f6d10cbd2b888903e211e0553bd6ea5f3496274f6e1c28870aeffd44225aa",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"43b7b510fe55636e529592954f52b81d7edf0b64a73b26d83b434b89b3b927b1"
]
],
"content": "š
Original date posted:2015-12-31\nš Original message:The UTXO sets may diverge but they actually will be strict subsets/supersets of each other as no transaction would be invalid on one fork vs another unless the hard fork lasts longer than 100 blocks. \nThis is of course specific to a block limit change hard fork. \n\n\n\nOn 2015/12/31, at 13:39, joe2015--- via bitcoin-dev \u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e\u003e So I'm very strongly against this \"generalized softfork\" idea -- I also don't\n\u003e\u003e see how upgraded nodes and non-upgraded nodes can possibly end up with the same\n\u003e\u003e UTXO set.\n\u003e \n\u003e The only way for non-upgraded nodes to get the correct UTXO set is to upgrade.\n\u003e \n\u003e It is important to keep in mind this was proposed as an alternative to a hardfork. With a hardfork the UTXOs also diverge as upgraded and non-upgraded clients follow different chains.\n\u003e \n\u003e --joe.\n\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev",
"sig": "626347e15b1ac757168e4bcd594998c37c87e4b90224b4ac910d03fd4f8a16cc8ec0573d167426a48fe1ab1c57598f2b62dd9b4d539041c07c5b657a5e4efd97"
}