[Bitcoin-development] Feedback requested: "reject" p2p message
mike at plan99.net
Tue Oct 29 12:32:27 UTC 2013
Yes, exactly. That's the point. As you well know I think the whole
soft-fork mechanism is wrong and should not be used. If the rules change,
your node is *supposed* to end up on a chain fork and trigger an alert to
you, that's pretty much the whole purpose of Bitcoin's design. Undermining
that security model is problematic.
On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 12:38 PM, Peter Todd <pete at petertodd.org> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256
> Peter Todd <pete at petertodd.org> wrote:
> >On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 10:52:31AM +0100, Mike Hearn wrote:
> >> For block 0x11 again shall there be a separate code for "block is
> >from the
> >> future"? We don't want to lose the nVersion field to people just
> >using it
> >> for nonsense, so does it make sense to reject blocks that claim to be
> >v2 or
> >> v3?
> >That would prevent us from using nVersion as a soft-forking mechanism.
> Actually, that statement didn't go far enough: rejecting blocks with
> nVersions that you don't expect is a hard fork.
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: APG v1.0.9
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the bitcoin-dev