diff options
author | Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au> | 2015-12-05 09:13:16 +1030 |
---|---|---|
committer | bitcoindev <bitcoindev@gnusha.org> | 2015-12-06 02:32:51 +0000 |
commit | 0d408660a437e403b3006a7e39a22d3a62c24bdc (patch) | |
tree | 1413f9778803422ac6f820f181aa4bfafed8f872 | |
parent | 3cae2317516c24e404b62f22820187e6f057fc3c (diff) | |
download | pi-bitcoindev-0d408660a437e403b3006a7e39a22d3a62c24bdc.tar.gz pi-bitcoindev-0d408660a437e403b3006a7e39a22d3a62c24bdc.zip |
Re: [bitcoin-dev] Blockchain verification flag (BIP draft)
-rw-r--r-- | bd/47c81cbdc00881a4b77719fd366b88e086ee89 | 70 |
1 files changed, 70 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/bd/47c81cbdc00881a4b77719fd366b88e086ee89 b/bd/47c81cbdc00881a4b77719fd366b88e086ee89 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..f29b6090c --- /dev/null +++ b/bd/47c81cbdc00881a4b77719fd366b88e086ee89 @@ -0,0 +1,70 @@ +Return-Path: <rusty@ozlabs.org> +Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org + [172.17.192.35]) + by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 40C018FC + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Sun, 6 Dec 2015 02:32:51 +0000 (UTC) +X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 +Received: from ozlabs.org (ozlabs.org [103.22.144.67]) + by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 80C01143 + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Sun, 6 Dec 2015 02:32:50 +0000 (UTC) +Received: by ozlabs.org (Postfix, from userid 1011) + id 1D4EA140323; Sun, 6 Dec 2015 13:32:47 +1100 (AEDT) +From: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au> +To: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>, Gregory Maxwell <greg@xiph.org> +In-Reply-To: <CABsx9T1vBRMYm6rLuqzvOxD0eABE4saF44JzZjMF3iUU==Nz0Q@mail.gmail.com> +References: <CAAS2fgRwfQNYxCmDPAnVudyAti9v8PPXQjxe9M13pmrFxKcSCQ@mail.gmail.com> + <CABsx9T1vBRMYm6rLuqzvOxD0eABE4saF44JzZjMF3iUU==Nz0Q@mail.gmail.com> +User-Agent: Notmuch/0.20.2 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/24.5.1 + (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) +Date: Sat, 05 Dec 2015 09:13:16 +1030 +Message-ID: <871tb16diz.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> +MIME-Version: 1.0 +Content-Type: text/plain +X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DATE_IN_PAST_24_48, + RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD 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] Blockchain verification flag (BIP draft) +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: Sun, 06 Dec 2015 02:32:51 -0000 + +Gavin Andresen via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> +writes: +> Overall, good idea. +> +> Is there a write-up somewhere describing in detail the 'accidental selfish +> mining' problem that this mitigates? I think a link in the BIP to a fuller +> description of the problem and how validation-skipping makes it go away +> would be helpful. +> +> RE: which bit to use: the draft versionbits BIP and BIP101 use bit 30; to +> avoid confusion, I think it would be better to use bit 0. + +Yes, BIP9 need to be adjusted (setting bit 30 means BIP9 counts it as a +vote against all softforks). BIP101 uses bits 0,1,2 AFAICT, so perhaps +start from the other end and use bit 29? We can bikeshed that later +though... + +> I agree with Jannes Faber, behavior with respect to SPV clients should be +> to only tell them about fully validated headers. + +A delicate balance. If we penalize these blocks too much, it's +disincentive to set the bit. Fortunately it's easy for SPV clients to +decide for themselves, I think? + +Cheers, +Rusty. + |