{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1s4lj77xuzcu7wy04afcr487f0r3za0f8n2775xrpkld2sv639mjqsd44kw","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1s4lj77xuzcu7wy04afcr487f0r3za0f8n2775xrpkld2sv639mjqsd44kw","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2013-10-30\n📝 Original message:On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 10:32 PM, Mike Hearn \u003cmike at plan99.net\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e Yes, exactly. That's the point. As you well know I think the whole\n\u003e soft-fork mechanism is wrong and should not be used. If the rules change,\n\u003e your node is *supposed* to end up on a chain fork and trigger an alert to\n\u003e you, that's pretty much the whole purpose of Bitcoin's design. Undermining\n\u003e that security model is problematic.\n\u003e\n\nBut if you are getting soft-forked recent versions of the reference\nimplementation WILL alert you; see this code in main.cpp:\n\n        if (nUpgraded \u003e 100/2)\n            strMiscWarning = _(\"Warning: This version is obsolete, upgrade\nrequired!\");\n\nThat is, if more than half of the last 100 blocks are up-version, warn.\n block.version is part of the block header, so SPV clients can (and\nprobably should) do the same.\n\nThere are also warnings if you are forked, and, most recently, warnings if\nthere is a high-work alternative fork.\n\n-- \n--\nGavin Andresen\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20131030/1ce0b2f8/attachment.html\u003e"}