summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorRusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>2015-12-05 09:13:16 +1030
committerbitcoindev <bitcoindev@gnusha.org>2015-12-06 02:32:51 +0000
commit0d408660a437e403b3006a7e39a22d3a62c24bdc (patch)
tree1413f9778803422ac6f820f181aa4bfafed8f872
parent3cae2317516c24e404b62f22820187e6f057fc3c (diff)
downloadpi-bitcoindev-0d408660a437e403b3006a7e39a22d3a62c24bdc.tar.gz
pi-bitcoindev-0d408660a437e403b3006a7e39a22d3a62c24bdc.zip
Re: [bitcoin-dev] Blockchain verification flag (BIP draft)
-rw-r--r--bd/47c81cbdc00881a4b77719fd366b88e086ee8970
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.
+