diff options
| author | Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com> | 2015-09-28 09:43:42 -0400 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | bitcoindev <bitcoindev@gnusha.org> | 2015-09-28 13:43:44 +0000 |
| commit | 1dc0cb6fd9270dabd515001972ec1f736eec1e0c (patch) | |
| tree | 76f051f1e5bf5b0d4c84c6f4effb9f49bcfc220a | |
| parent | d901f159c2c0325d20321e0cd88bdadd3e931e2c (diff) | |
| download | pi-bitcoindev-1dc0cb6fd9270dabd515001972ec1f736eec1e0c.tar.gz pi-bitcoindev-1dc0cb6fd9270dabd515001972ec1f736eec1e0c.zip | |
Re: [bitcoin-dev] Let's deploy BIP65 CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY!
| -rw-r--r-- | 5c/538d10d393386c3005b8522c00d6bc575c8267 | 142 |
1 files changed, 142 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/5c/538d10d393386c3005b8522c00d6bc575c8267 b/5c/538d10d393386c3005b8522c00d6bc575c8267 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..e425e6d13 --- /dev/null +++ b/5c/538d10d393386c3005b8522c00d6bc575c8267 @@ -0,0 +1,142 @@ +Return-Path: <gavinandresen@gmail.com> +Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org + [172.17.192.35]) + by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CA2B217E6 + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Mon, 28 Sep 2015 13:43:44 +0000 (UTC) +X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 +Received: from mail-la0-f53.google.com (mail-la0-f53.google.com + [209.85.215.53]) + by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1C96C21A + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Mon, 28 Sep 2015 13:43:44 +0000 (UTC) +Received: by laclj5 with SMTP id lj5so66579809lac.3 + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Mon, 28 Sep 2015 06:43:42 -0700 (PDT) +DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; + h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to + :cc:content-type; + bh=AOAIPwMm4vXnM2jrvxU1QAZQN0rPQ4AW1HzjoVJPsjM=; + b=IQLASUv/oYQCUITagRITpbe5DZZe9f5fQHzV6Btzuak3mO+NCAePB/li871RTP7ym7 + GgFL5lLITGN+s4BlVd/0J6hHN1RdZragVI3HDzxBU4A7Q91f6x7calRPoh56a0aOYvnc + rS0JwjVwbxHTAtvLwOgUZuYrPDTA20+HYXCsvtK8USg6tzngJf7EJTJDyVs3jc7h6JGq + Kc+10qd9hT7GsENDQ2XfPWax2SBVXQrOSsSbgBEOqAs6Br5jQ8NcEi8F0oioTOvxzXVM + FoUiJ9lmcBXQ8qt1cr6AbF3ra4wYFWiIm2HnEtZrulBmMX0cosZ7U08MOl0cmD7VQHfe + TDHg== +MIME-Version: 1.0 +X-Received: by 10.152.23.170 with SMTP id n10mr3702595laf.32.1443447822405; + Mon, 28 Sep 2015 06:43:42 -0700 (PDT) +Received: by 10.25.200.214 with HTTP; Mon, 28 Sep 2015 06:43:42 -0700 (PDT) +In-Reply-To: <20150928132814.GB4829@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> +Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2015 09:43:42 -0400 +Message-ID: <CABsx9T1qUcdFjvJfM-hOHh5pUeoA76uW2qOC6kRiM-+Qrfop7w@mail.gmail.com> +From: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com> +To: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org> +Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0158c94cb4db390520cee2fe +X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, + DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,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 13:43:44 -0000 + +--089e0158c94cb4db390520cee2fe +Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 + +On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 9:28 AM, Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org> wrote: + +> > 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 deploying +> > 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. +> + +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. + +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. + +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.' + +-- +-- +Gavin Andresen + +--089e0158c94cb4db390520cee2fe +Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 +Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable + +<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On M= +on, Sep 28, 2015 at 9:28 AM, Peter Todd <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"ma= +ilto:pete@petertodd.org" target=3D"_blank">pete@petertodd.org</a>></span= +> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;bo= +rder-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class=3D"">> 2) Mr. Tod= +d (or somebody) needs to write up a risk/benefit security<br> +> tradeoff analysis doo-hickey document and publish it. I'm reasonab= +ly<br> +> confident that the risks to SPV nodes can be mitigated (e.g. by deploy= +ing<br> +> mempool-only first, before the soft fork rolls out), but as somebody w= +ho<br> +> has only been moderately paying attention, BETTER COMMUNICATION is nee= +ded.<br> +> What should SPV wallet authors be doing right now, if anything? Once t= +he<br> +> soft fork starts to roll out or activates, what do miners need to be a= +ware<br> +> of? SPV wallet authors?<br> +<br> +</span>Do you have such a document for your BIP101? That would save me a lo= +t of<br> +time, and the need for that kind of document is significantly higher<br> +with BIP101 anyway.<br></blockquote></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br></= +div>Hmmm?=C2=A0 When I asked YOU for that kind of security analysis documen= +t, you said you'd see if any of your clients would be willing to let yo= +u publish one you'd done in the past. Then I never heard back from you.= +</div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra">So, n= +o, I don't have one for BIP 101, but unless you were lying and just try= +ing to add Yet Another Hoop for BIP 101 to jump through, you should already= + have something to start from.<br><br>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 im= +plementors why that was done for Core and what they should do to follow = +9;best practices to be soft-fork ready.'<div><br></div>-- <br><div clas= +s=3D"gmail_signature">--<br>Gavin Andresen<br></div> +</div></div> + +--089e0158c94cb4db390520cee2fe-- + |