create RFC DUBP V12

• rename DUP -> DUBP
• Indicates the possibility of invalid signatures in v10 and v11
• Remove rule BR_G106
• Update rule BR_G102: Obtaining the REF_BLOCK by number only (removal of the constraint on hash)
• Update transactions local validation: addition of a minimal amount on outputs
• Update of the expected version for each document
• Adding local and global validations in the outline

added 2 commits

• a0fa3c52 - tmp
• 527f359d - create RFC DUBp V12

Compare with previous version

added 6 commits

• 527f359d...39bea37f - 4 commits from branch master
• 306d4ad1 - tmp
• ed256c43 - [enh] write DUBP v12

Compare with previous version

changed the description

assigned to @c-geek

added 1 commit

• 5ed5d787 - [enh] write DUBP v12

Compare with previous version

@c-geek can you review this RFC ?

You can see all the differences with version 11 here: !10 (ed256c43)

Could you write a clean history? Like one commit to make an exact copy of the content. This is tmp commit, could you give a better commit message?

And then, one commit per relatively important change (atomic changes).

This, in order to ease the review and to follow step by step the changes on this important document.

Thank you.

added 6 commits

• d2c6dbe3 - Exact copy of DUBP v11
• 816a9f05 - [ref] rename UCP/DUP -> DUBP + make implementation agnostic
• 485f842f - Update of the expected version for each document
• 463e72a9 - Indicates the possibility of invalid signatures in blocks with v10 or 11
• dc3dbf39 - Add min amount for each transaction output & remove rule BR_G106
• 4277f34d - Update rule BR_G102: Obtain REF_BLOCK by number only, rm hash constraint

Compare with previous version

@moul it's done :)

For my understanding, there this two changes in the block document from the version 11 to the 12?

Can we get a § explaining the changes and the reasons of this new version in this document? Were there already this kind of § for the v11? I didn’t find some. But that could be a nice addition.

added 4 commits

• 71b1b239 - Update of the expected version for each document
• e7ac3561 - Indicates the possibility of invalid signatures in blocks with v10 or 11
• 0c655194 - Add min amount for each transaction output & remove rule BR_G106
• 014a0b84 - Update rule BR_G102: Obtain REF_BLOCK by number only, rm hash constraint

Compare with previous version

resolved all threads

Ok, looks great to me!

From a protocol point of view, I am not an expert, so I will let other review that part.

added 1 commit

• 32b1d55e - [fix] #11: rule BR_G27 : do not count certs being replayed twice

Compare with previous version

added 1 commit

• 3af6b91b - [fix] #11: rule BR_G27 : do not count certs being replayed twice

Compare with previous version

added 2 commits

• cf620ef4 - Add min amount for each transaction output & remove rule BR_G106
• 0e7c7e09 - [fix] #11: rule BR_G27 : do not count certs being replayed twice

Compare with previous version

added 3 commits

• 21f2304e - Indicates the possibility of invalid signatures in blocks with v10 or 11
• 15265e89 - Add min amount for each transaction output & remove rule BR_G106
• 4f2b3573 - [fix] #11: rule BR_G27 : do not count certs being replayed twice

Compare with previous version

added 1 commit

• 956e9c87 - [fix] #11: rule BR_G27 : do not count certs being replayed twice

Compare with previous version

added 1 commit

• 17c733d7 - [fix] #11: rule BR_G27 : do not count certs being replayed twice

Compare with previous version

resolved all threads

merged

mentioned in commit 361b8d51