On 2015-12-21 12:23, jl2012 wrote:
I proposed something very similar 2 years ago: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=283746.0
Yes there are similarities but also some important differences. See my response here: http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-December/012085.html
In short my proposal is compatible with conventional blocksize limit hardfork ideas, like BIP101, BIP202, 2-4-8 etc. etc.
This is an interesting academic idea. But the way you implement it will immediately kill all existing full and SPV nodes (not really dead, rather like zombie as they can't send and receive any tx).
That's the whole point. After a conventional hardfork everyone needs to upgrade, but there is no way to force users to upgrade. A user who is simply unaware of the fork, or disagrees with the fork, uses the old client and the currency splits.
Under this proposal old clients effectively enter "zombie" mode, forcing users to upgrade.
--joe _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
