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
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Android is increasing in popularity, but the open development platform that developers love is also attractive to malware creators. Download this white paper to learn more about secure code signing practices that can help keep Android apps secure. http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=65839951&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
