diff options
| author | Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org> | 2015-09-28 10:14:41 -0400 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | bitcoindev <bitcoindev@gnusha.org> | 2015-09-28 14:14:49 +0000 |
| commit | 062793659d0e896ebd4c02b048bbedc8099386e1 (patch) | |
| tree | c4513565a3ff57c6327abf930f16b8de1024839a | |
| parent | c8910bfffa98db084c45a0d09563448051df23e6 (diff) | |
| download | pi-bitcoindev-062793659d0e896ebd4c02b048bbedc8099386e1.tar.gz pi-bitcoindev-062793659d0e896ebd4c02b048bbedc8099386e1.zip | |
Re: [bitcoin-dev] Let's deploy BIP65 CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY!
| -rw-r--r-- | 7d/252459fafcba91ac431319ab9c3e19d0f5964b | 153 |
1 files changed, 153 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/7d/252459fafcba91ac431319ab9c3e19d0f5964b b/7d/252459fafcba91ac431319ab9c3e19d0f5964b new file mode 100644 index 000000000..6cccfdb6b --- /dev/null +++ b/7d/252459fafcba91ac431319ab9c3e19d0f5964b @@ -0,0 +1,153 @@ +Return-Path: <pete@petertodd.org> +Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org + [172.17.192.35]) + by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8F16F1985 + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Mon, 28 Sep 2015 14:14:49 +0000 (UTC) +X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 +Received: from outmail148154.authsmtp.co.uk (outmail148154.authsmtp.co.uk + [62.13.148.154]) + by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1B2C222 + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Mon, 28 Sep 2015 14:14:48 +0000 (UTC) +Received: from mail-c235.authsmtp.com (mail-c235.authsmtp.com [62.13.128.235]) + by punt15.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id t8SEElUg026941; + Mon, 28 Sep 2015 15:14:47 +0100 (BST) +Received: from savin.petertodd.org (75-119-251-161.dsl.teksavvy.com + [75.119.251.161]) (authenticated bits=128) + by mail.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id t8SEEgqo025254 + (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); + Mon, 28 Sep 2015 15:14:44 +0100 (BST) +Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2015 10:14:41 -0400 +From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org> +To: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com> +Message-ID: <20150928141441.GA21815@savin.petertodd.org> +References: <20150927185031.GA20599@savin.petertodd.org> + <CA+w+GKRCVr-9TVk66utp7xLRgTxNpxYoj3XQE-6y_N8JS6eO6Q@mail.gmail.com> + <CABsx9T0XW_jGYhNw6t29AZXz1TxjuHjfEvsbdF5Ji7LUkFo4Ow@mail.gmail.com> + <20150928132814.GB4829@savin.petertodd.org> + <CABsx9T1qUcdFjvJfM-hOHh5pUeoA76uW2qOC6kRiM-+Qrfop7w@mail.gmail.com> +MIME-Version: 1.0 +Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; + protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="jRHKVT23PllUwdXP" +Content-Disposition: inline +In-Reply-To: <CABsx9T1qUcdFjvJfM-hOHh5pUeoA76uW2qOC6kRiM-+Qrfop7w@mail.gmail.com> +User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) +X-Server-Quench: 44f55940-65eb-11e5-b399-002590a15da7 +X-AuthReport-Spam: If SPAM / abuse - report it at: + http://www.authsmtp.com/abuse +X-AuthRoute: OCd2Yg0TA1ZNQRgX IjsJECJaVQIpKltL GxAVKBZePFsRUQkR + aQdMdAoUC1AEAgsB AmMbWlFeUVl7XWY7 bA9PbARUfEhLXhtr + VklWR1pVCwQmRRRi c2tJE0ZydQBEfXo+ ZEVgXHcVWEAscEN0 + Rk5JE2hTN3phaTUa TRJbfgpJcANIexZF O1F6ACIKLwdSbGoL + FQ4vNDcwO3BTJTpg CiUAMR0JCUoGBjo7 VlgoPA1xQAUuZwgY + DDgBAX0gPWM8DGgI EHUQEDp/ +X-Authentic-SMTP: 61633532353630.1023:706 +X-AuthFastPath: 0 (Was 255) +X-AuthSMTP-Origin: 75.119.251.161/587 +X-AuthVirus-Status: No virus detected - but ensure you scan with your own + anti-virus system. +X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW + autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 +X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on + smtp1.linux-foundation.org +Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> +Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Let's deploy BIP65 CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY! +X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org +X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 +Precedence: list +List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org> +List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>, + <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe> +List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/> +List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> +List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help> +List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>, + <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe> +X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2015 14:14:49 -0000 + + +--jRHKVT23PllUwdXP +Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii +Content-Disposition: inline +Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable + +On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 09:43:42AM -0400, Gavin Andresen wrote: +> On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 9:28 AM, Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org> wrote: +>=20 +> > > 2) Mr. Todd (or somebody) needs to write up a risk/benefit security +> > > tradeoff analysis doo-hickey document and publish it. I'm reasonably +> > > confident that the risks to SPV nodes can be mitigated (e.g. by deplo= +ying +> > > mempool-only first, before the soft fork rolls out), but as somebody = +who +> > > has only been moderately paying attention, BETTER COMMUNICATION is +> > needed. +> > > What should SPV wallet authors be doing right now, if anything? Once = +the +> > > soft fork starts to roll out or activates, what do miners need to be +> > aware +> > > of? SPV wallet authors? +> > +> > Do you have such a document for your BIP101? That would save me a lot of +> > time, and the need for that kind of document is significantly higher +> > with BIP101 anyway. +> > +>=20 +> Hmmm? When I asked YOU for that kind of security analysis document, you +> said you'd see if any of your clients would be willing to let you publish +> one you'd done in the past. Then I never heard back from you. + +I don't remember what you are referring to at all. Was this a private +email? IRC chat? In person discussion? + +> So, no, I don't have one for BIP 101, but unless you were lying and just +> trying to add Yet Another Hoop for BIP 101 to jump through, you should +> already have something to start from. + +"unless you were lying" + +Please keep the discussion on the development mailing list civil and +respectful. + +> RE: mempool only: yes, pull-req 5000 satisfies (and that's what I was +> thinking of). There should be a nice, readable blog post explaining to +> other full node implementors and wallet implementors why that was done for +> Core and what they should do to follow 'best practices to be soft-fork +> ready.' + +Actually, that sounds like the kind of thing that should be in the +bitcoin.org developer documentation; IMO for the audience of competent +full node developers the comments in the pull-req code itself and +associated discussion covers everything they need to know. Without that +background though, this is something that'd fit well in the category of +general education to get new developers to a good state of competence. + +As for wallets specifically, that's pretty much all covered by SPV +wallets based on bitcoinj, and Mike Hearn has different views on the +subject which need to be resolved first. + +--=20 +'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org +0000000000000000102f6eb0772c453a0ad0e10a6f720f41a7f008a7d329ef66 + +--jRHKVT23PllUwdXP +Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" +Content-Description: Digital signature + +-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- + +iQGrBAEBCACVBQJWCUtNXhSAAAAAABUAQGJsb2NraGFzaEBiaXRjb2luLm9yZzAw +MDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwY2E2MjYzNzRmMjVkYWRiYmI5MjQ1ZTYwNTYzYTRkODc2 +ZjNjNzMwNzBhZDM4NDkvFIAAAAAAFQARcGthLWFkZHJlc3NAZ251cGcub3JncGV0 +ZUBwZXRlcnRvZC5vcmcACgkQJIFAPaXwkft3MAf+LD5ELAZfnu3d9QeBs6RbIBT5 +IkSbA3VvFZqDmsCUJhPVCHKLtp+MJWzQ3S4woNkjt6qD/Ym2c9Cp9uTByBQ2OwXI +zud5uBoJNryS1oe90lVC+RVdZV+eRzVyl7ml5lDrYf8Rvh/VdtI+HmPLiryEC/4w +DXL3demXVhMBlk4bDI1Vr5foxkgjWI187kn+6JmLx+UrSwMoyGf+ilfnh/suU+1k +q45hIAjZ7T8cx0s50bteYzQGxeU301hL3SkuCfqiEasfE+r8C5JQ/gsKORinS+UR +VBdqLWgrZfJpFnem5PLg94Xq/mc0gxnH2RzFXZAxqR4+WOLjpvZ8rr+8/nlrwQ== +=zXTS +-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- + +--jRHKVT23PllUwdXP-- + |