Yes, exactly. That's the point. As you well know I think the whole
soft-fork mechanism is wrong and should not be used. If the rules change,
your node is *supposed* to end up on a chain fork and trigger an alert to
you, that's pretty much the whole purpose of Bitcoin's design. Undermining
that security model is problematic.


On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 12:38 PM, Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org> wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256
>
>
>
> Peter Todd <pete@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-----
>
>