On 26 January 2017 at 18:20, Johnson Lau via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: >You can’t anti-replay if you don’t even know a hardfork might happen. And I >think your hypothesis (replay reduces the incentive of split) is not supported >by the ETC/ETH split.
I agree with the general point you're making, but you *could* anti-replay without knowing about the fork, at least from a few dozen blocks into it. For example you could allow transactions to specify a recent block hash (or some of the bytes thereof) and declare that they want to be invalid if that block isn't in the parent chain. This would potentially have benefits beyond economic hard-fork situations: As a general principle, if the network that you're transacting with doesn't look like the one you think you're transacting with, you're going to have a bad day. -- -- Edmund Edgar Founder, Social Minds Inc (KK) Twitter: @edmundedgar Linked In: edmundedgar Skype: edmundedgar http://www.socialminds.jp Reality Keys @realitykeys e...@realitykeys.com https://www.realitykeys.com _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
