On Sunday, October 02, 2016 5:18:08 PM Andrew Johnson via bitcoin-dev wrote: > Is this particular proposal encumbered by a licensing type, patent, or > pending patent which would preclude it from being used in the bitcoin > project? If not, you're wildly off topic.
I think that's the concern: we don't - and *can't* - know. Pending patents are not publicly visible, as far as I am aware, and the BIP process does not (presently) require any patent disclosure. Of course, it is entirely possible to voluntarily provide a disclosure of patents in the BIP (and ideally a free license to such patents, at least those for the BIP). This is an alternative possibility to resolve patent concerns if Rootstock is not prepared to adopt a defensive patent strategy in general (yet?). On Sunday, October 02, 2016 6:17:12 PM Russell O'Connor via bitcoin-dev wrote: > If I understand this BIP correctly, the values pushed onto the stack by the > OP_COUNT_ACKS operation depends on the ack and nack counts relative to the > block that this happens to be included in. > > This isn't going to be acceptable. The validity of a transaction should > always be monotone in the sense that if a transaction was acceptable in a > given block, it must always be acceptable in any subsequent block, with the > only exception being if one of the transaction's inputs get double spent. I don't know if it's possible to implement decentralised sidechains without "breaking" this rule. But I would argue that in this scenario, the only way it would become invalid is the equivalent of a double-spend... and therefore it may be acceptable in relation to this argument. Luke _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
