Hi ZmnSCPxj.
> There is a position that fullnodes must be able to get a view of the UTXO
set, and extension blocks (which are invisible to pre-extension-block
fullnodes) means that fullnodes no longer have an accurate view of the UTXO
set.
> SegWit still provides pre-SegWit fullnodes with a view
Greetings,
I think extension blocks could be optional, and it could be many different
extension blocks with different functionalities like Confidential Transactions
or smart contracts. Only the interested nodes would enable this extension
blocks, the rest would see only the classic blockchain
>Under this point-of-view, then, extension block is "not" soft fork.
>It is "evil" soft fork since older nodes are forced to upgrade as their
>intended functionality becomes impossible.
>In this point-of-view, it is no better than a hard fork, which at least is
>very noisy about how older
To: Kenshiro \[\]; Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Implementing Confidential Transactions in extension
blocks
Good morning Kenshiro,
> - Soft fork: old nodes see CT transactions as "sendtoany" transactions
There is a position that fullnodes must be able to get
Good morning Kenshiro,
> - Soft fork: old nodes see CT transactions as "sendtoany" transactions
There is a position that fullnodes must be able to get a view of the UTXO set,
and extension blocks (which are invisible to pre-extension-block fullnodes)
means that fullnodes no longer have an
Greetings,
What do you think about implementing Confidential Transactions in extension
blocks? CT transactions go from extension block to extension block passing
through normal blocks. It looks the perfect solution:
- Soft fork: old nodes see CT transactions as "sendtoany" transactions
- Safe:
