<oembed><type>rich</type><version>1.0</version><author_name>npub1fx98zxt3lzspjs5f4msr0fxysx5euucm29ghysryju7vpc9j0jzqtcl2d8</author_name><author_url>https://nostr.ae/npub1fx98zxt3lzspjs5f4msr0fxysx5euucm29ghysryju7vpc9j0jzqtcl2d8</author_url><provider_name>njump</provider_name><provider_url>https://nostr.ae</provider_url><html>📅 Original date posted:2015-09-30&#xA;📝 Original message:On Oct 1, 2015 12:14 AM, &#34;Jorge Timón&#34; &lt;jtimon at jtimon.cc&gt; wrote:&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 11:06 PM, Mike Hearn &lt;hearn at vinumeris.com&gt; wrote:&#xA;&gt; &gt;&gt; Exactly, all those &#34;mini divergences&#34; eventually disappear&#xA;&gt; &gt;&#xA;&gt; &gt; A miner that has accepted a newly invalid transaction into its memory&#xA;pool&#xA;&gt; &gt; and is trying to mine it, will keep producing invalid blocks forever&#xA;until&#xA;&gt; &gt; the owner shuts it down and upgrades. This was happening for weeks after&#xA;&gt; &gt; P2SH triggered.&#xA;&gt; &gt;&#xA;&gt; &gt; For instance, any miner that has modified/bypassed IsStandard() can do&#xA;this,&#xA;&gt; &gt; or any miner that accepts direct transaction submission, or any miner&#xA;that&#xA;&gt; &gt; runs an old node from before OP_NOPs were made non-standard.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; That is correct. But doesn&#39;t seem to contradict anything I said.&#xA;&#xA;Actually, no, sorry, the second paragraph is not correct as explained by&#xA;Greg Maxwell.&#xA;-------------- next part --------------&#xA;An HTML attachment was scrubbed...&#xA;URL: &lt;http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20151001/a24e6353/attachment.html&gt;</html></oembed>