David Chan [ARCHIVE]

⚠️ This account is not associated with a real person. It's an archival account for mailing list messages.
🗓️ Active from 2015-12-30 to 2015-12-31
💬 Posted a total of 2 messages
📚 Participated in the following categories: bitcoin-dev
🔇 Please do not DM this user as it's used for archive purposes only.

Public Key

npub14xdxsc76lm5tg3c0rcw5gy54uurg7ypug4tgvltm4qrxsrfmaugs04w5v8

Profile Code

nprofile1qqs2nxngv0d0a695gu83u82yz227wp50zq7y245x04a6spngp5a77yglsrexp

Author Public Key

npub14xdxsc76lm5tg3c0rcw5gy54uurg7ypug4tgvltm4qrxsrfmaugs04w5v8

Show more details

Last Notes

2023-06-07 17:47:15

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2015-12-31
📝 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