> On 26 Jan 2017, at 03:32, Tom Harding <t...@thinlink.com> wrote: > > On 1/24/2017 8:03 PM, Johnson Lau wrote: >> it seems they are not the same: yours is opt-out, while mine is opt-in. > > I missed this. So in fact you propose a self-defeating requirement on the > new network, which would force unmodified yet otherwise compatible systems to > change to support the new network at all. This is unlikely to be included in > new network designs. > > I suggest that the opt-out bits proposal comes from a more realistic position > that would actually make sense for everyone. >
I think there are some misunderstanding. You’d better read my source code if my explanation is not clear. From my understanding our proposals are the same, just with a bitwise not (~) before the network characteristic byte. So you set a bit to opt-out a network, while I set a bit to opt-in a network (and opt-out any other) _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
