<oembed><type>rich</type><version>1.0</version><author_name>Tomas [ARCHIVE] (npub1rs…9evk4)</author_name><author_url>https://nostr.ae/npub1rsp4w56r24w3zv4xy8zfgesep45qmf9rq6aghxfw3wr7yemqnnwsf9evk4</author_url><provider_name>njump</provider_name><provider_url>https://nostr.ae</provider_url><html>📅 Original date posted:2017-04-11&#xA;📝 Original message:On Tue, Apr 11, 2017, at 11:41, Eric Voskuil wrote:&#xA;&gt; It&#39;s not the headers/tx-hashes of the blocks that I&#39;m referring to, it&#xA;&gt; is the confirmation and spend information relative to all txs and all&#xA;&gt; outputs for each branch. This reverse navigation (i.e. utxo&#xA;&gt; information) is essential, must be persistent and is branch-relative.&#xA;&#xA;That is exactly what is stored in the spend-tree. &#xA;&#xA;&gt;&gt; As a simpler example, if two miners both mine a block at&#xA;&gt;&gt; approximately the same time and send it to each other, then surely&#xA;&gt;&gt; they would want to continue mining on their own block. Otherwise&#xA;&gt;&gt; they would be throwing away their own reward.&#xA;&#xA;&gt; That&#39;s not your concurrent validation scenario. In the scenario you&#xA;&gt; described, the person chooses the weaker block of two that require&#xA;&gt; validation because it&#39;s better somehow, not because it&#39;s his own&#xA;&gt; (which does not require validation).&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Consistency is reached, despite seeing things at different times,&#xA;&gt; because people use the same rules. If the economy ran on arbitrary&#xA;&gt; block preference consistency would be elusive.&#xA;&#xA;No but my example shows  that it is up to the miner to choose which tip&#xA;to work on. This is not using different rules, it is just optimizing its&#xA;income. This means that the economy *does* run on arbitrary &#34;block&#xA;preference&#34;, even if it is not running on arbitrary rules.&#xA;&#xA;If two blocks are competing, a miner could optimize its decision which&#xA;to mine on, not just on whether one of the blocks is his own, but also&#xA;on fees, or on excessive validation costs.&#xA;&#xA;&gt; I read this as encoding the height at which a fork historically&#xA;&gt; activated. If you intend to track activation for each branch that will&#xA;&gt; not be &#34;height-based&#34; it will be history based.&#xA;&#xA;I understand &#34;height-based&#34; was not the right wording, as it is of&#xA;course branch-specific. Per tip ruleset metadata, must be matched with&#xA;per-transaction ruleset metadata.&#xA;&#xA;Tomas</html></oembed>