rich1.0npub1m230cem2yh3mtdzkg32qhj73uytgkyg5ylxsu083n3tpjnajxx4qqa2np2https://nostr.ae/npub1m230cem2yh3mtdzkg32qhj73uytgkyg5ylxsu083n3tpjnajxx4qqa2np2njumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2013-10-29 📝 Original message:-----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 iQFQBAEBCAA6BQJSb544MxxQZXRlciBUb2RkIChsb3cgc2VjdXJpdHkga2V5KSA8 cGV0ZUBwZXRlcnRvZGQub3JnPgAKCRAZnIM7qOfwhfuGCADHB+5WZ3oSRCCYgId+ 5c4rxZHjjmXXIVOlXySjoRQ20JUnGbkUqN057VlutYbWaGV7OqR0oQyzh0LGpMdL BU9hg8XoHbyIvA0WhCfEJvFzkwseN8Ac77UxtV3leBpBkSzjqlMS9QBGU6L5rw2U uo8Sd7bQaqkadOPode3MMWDtmmqAZaj2dN02w/8C1rRna3SrbYRVYbaVAuN9yREO 99DOGEM2V7ni+eo4sQoxP2jf8vmNzy1EuQH8v1OloPgcpxl/GkLVXzQh4ZfO1ApE UVKBo93oT34Tce9LwZy+k8XpeCvBRJ/+QwsbAAgdVYKr8KmRcAW4oR2KN7Y0jjq4 44xU =OaON -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----