rich1.0npub1m230cem2yh3mtdzkg32qhj73uytgkyg5ylxsu083n3tpjnajxx4qqa2np2https://nostr.ae/npub1m230cem2yh3mtdzkg32qhj73uytgkyg5ylxsu083n3tpjnajxx4qqa2np2njumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2013-10-29 📝 Original message: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. -- 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org 000000000000000908fddb47210344de50e6d3bd842e649c68853eeee0390dcd -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 685 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20131029/c357d271/attachment.sig>