{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1m230cem2yh3mtdzkg32qhj73uytgkyg5ylxsu083n3tpjnajxx4qqa2np2","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1m230cem2yh3mtdzkg32qhj73uytgkyg5ylxsu083n3tpjnajxx4qqa2np2","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2013-10-29\n📝 Original message:On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 10:52:31AM +0100, Mike Hearn wrote:\n\u003e For block 0x11 again shall there be a separate code for \"block is from the\n\u003e future\"? We don't want to lose the nVersion field to people just using it\n\u003e for nonsense, so does it make sense to reject blocks that claim to be v2 or\n\u003e v3?\n\nThat would prevent us from using nVersion as a soft-forking mechanism.\n\n-- \n'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org\n000000000000000908fddb47210344de50e6d3bd842e649c68853eeee0390dcd\n-------------- next part --------------\nA non-text attachment was scrubbed...\nName: signature.asc\nType: application/pgp-signature\nSize: 685 bytes\nDesc: Digital signature\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20131029/c357d271/attachment.sig\u003e"}