📅 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.
joe2015 at openmailbox.org [ARCHIVE] /
npub1gw…hphxp
2023-06-07 17:47:23
in reply to nevent1q…ll0y
Author Public Key
npub1gwmm2y87243ku554j225754cr4ld7zmy5uajdkpmgd9cnvaey7cs4hphxpPublished at
2023-06-07 17:47:23Event JSON
{
"id": "4c84dc8cc1a1e4c362d8bf6e72e16fbab006b66070f5a1f002634dfff4f07513",
"pubkey": "43b7b510fe55636e529592954f52b81d7edf0b64a73b26d83b434b89b3b927b1",
"created_at": 1686160043,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"410a15ecaf9eb209e9831774c35dbf549a77975bb49e6a60c2dbf869774cfd1f",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"e4803411fd806cb88758a90b04acd72f72d35e7c4e322c37a66bf05a8b3a7a18",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"04038841fa1dffefb87710e6ca5bcef647155d764360a6d1e77ab28e7646a869"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-12-30\n📝 Original message:On 2015-12-30 18:33, Marco Falke wrote:\n\u003e This is an interesting approach but I don't see how this is a soft\n\u003e fork. (Just because something is not a hard fork, doesn't make it a\n\u003e soft fork by definition)\n\u003e Softforks don't require any nodes to upgrade. [1]\n\u003e Nonetheless, as I understand your approach, it requires nodes to\n\u003e upgrade. Otherwise they are missing all transactions but the coinbase\n\u003e transactions. Thus, they cannot update their utxoset and are easily\n\u003e susceptible to double spends...\n\u003e \n\u003e Am I missing something obvious?\n\u003e \n\u003e -- Marco\n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e [1] https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Softfork#Implications\n\nIt just depends how you define \"softfork\". In my original write-up I \ncalled it a \"generalized\" softfork, Peter suggested a \"firm\" fork, and \nthere are some suggestions for other names. Ultimately what you call it \nis not very important.\n\n--joe.",
"sig": "cf7f92d1c85083dd04a43ff4d0e18a9f70278327d6aa283147ff16fdd974febf9ad413f8144073b9097d45d5cecd94c84e2c537401694db24838403c70abc936"
}