diff options
| author | Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com> | 2015-06-20 20:11:53 +0200 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | bitcoindev <bitcoindev@gnusha.org> | 2015-06-20 18:12:02 +0000 |
| commit | 8dd0c9141fadeea9b9bc40aaf70410f772f707aa (patch) | |
| tree | 230137343adc1ce86992b9d70801fab0f4d4b738 | |
| parent | cf2421f8328e3f7d6fc2c529a96a19f2ea6460da (diff) | |
| download | pi-bitcoindev-8dd0c9141fadeea9b9bc40aaf70410f772f707aa.tar.gz pi-bitcoindev-8dd0c9141fadeea9b9bc40aaf70410f772f707aa.zip | |
Re: [Bitcoin-development] Hard fork via miner vote
| -rw-r--r-- | f0/d921695b939e509513b7c583515347cfc09f07 | 125 |
1 files changed, 125 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/f0/d921695b939e509513b7c583515347cfc09f07 b/f0/d921695b939e509513b7c583515347cfc09f07 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..4447519a3 --- /dev/null +++ b/f0/d921695b939e509513b7c583515347cfc09f07 @@ -0,0 +1,125 @@ +Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194] + helo=mx.sourceforge.net) + by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) + (envelope-from <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>) id 1Z6NFK-0005O4-3u + for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; + Sat, 20 Jun 2015 18:12:02 +0000 +Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com + designates 209.85.215.53 as permitted sender) + client-ip=209.85.215.53; envelope-from=pieter.wuille@gmail.com; + helo=mail-la0-f53.google.com; +Received: from mail-la0-f53.google.com ([209.85.215.53]) + by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) + (Exim 4.76) id 1Z6NFI-0003R8-8p + for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; + Sat, 20 Jun 2015 18:12:02 +0000 +Received: by lagi2 with SMTP id i2so662724lag.2 + for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>; + Sat, 20 Jun 2015 11:11:53 -0700 (PDT) +MIME-Version: 1.0 +X-Received: by 10.112.55.70 with SMTP id q6mr22142274lbp.99.1434823913570; + Sat, 20 Jun 2015 11:11:53 -0700 (PDT) +Received: by 10.112.19.7 with HTTP; Sat, 20 Jun 2015 11:11:53 -0700 (PDT) +In-Reply-To: <CAFVRnyoqdbhGB1LVcawMqviq4ExvoOMM7CfFKSAtDgcZBc1TKw@mail.gmail.com> +References: <CAPg+sBijQ0Q9U00hUaotYujqW8M+v1ED+PV+ap2g7b0Z4=RNSA@mail.gmail.com> + <CAPg+sBhb6TyS=Bz4chLixw4Qc0Q1w6VdW-YTHZ-O_fyfvCJ+6Q@mail.gmail.com> + <CAFVRnyoqdbhGB1LVcawMqviq4ExvoOMM7CfFKSAtDgcZBc1TKw@mail.gmail.com> +Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2015 20:11:53 +0200 +Message-ID: <CAPg+sBgmGcWF6YHg0rrq8AK3V323fw9mvms3u=RzuP=5j5v6hw@mail.gmail.com> +From: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com> +To: David Vorick <david.vorick@gmail.com> +Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1133d13caf09210518f6f951 +X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/) +X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. + See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. + -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for + sender-domain + 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider + (pieter.wuille[at]gmail.com) + -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record + 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message + -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from + author's domain + 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, + not necessarily valid + -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature +X-Headers-End: 1Z6NFI-0003R8-8p +Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net> +Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Hard fork via miner vote +X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net +X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 +Precedence: list +List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net> +List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>, + <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe> +List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development> +List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net> +List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help> +List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>, + <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe> +X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2015 18:12:02 -0000 + +--001a1133d13caf09210518f6f951 +Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 + +On Sat, Jun 20, 2015 at 7:26 PM, David Vorick <david.vorick@gmail.com> +wrote: + +> I see it as unreasonable to expect all nodes to upgrade during a hardfork. +> If you are intentionally waiting for that to happen, it's possible for an +> extreme minority of nodes to hold the rest of the network hostage by simply +> refusing to upgrade. However you want nodes to be able to protest until it +> is clear that they have lost the battle without being at risk of getting +> hardforked out of the network unexpectedly. +> + +You can't observe the majority of nodes, only miners, and weighed by +hashrate. If you need a mechanism for protest, that should happen before +the hard fork change code is rolled out. I am assuming a completely +uncontroversial change, in order to not confuse this discussion with the +debate about what hard forks should be done. + +So I am not talking about protest, just about deploying a change. And yes, +it is unreasonable to expect that every single node will upgrade. But there +is a difference between ignoring old unmaintained nodes that do not +influence anyone's behaviour, and ignoring the nodes that power miners +producing actual blocks. In addition, having no blocks on the old chain is +safer than producing a small number, as you want full nodes that have not +noticed the fork to fail rather than see a slow but otherwise functional +chain. + +-- +Pieter + +--001a1133d13caf09210518f6f951 +Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 +Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable + +<div dir=3D"ltr">On Sat, Jun 20, 2015 at 7:26 PM, David Vorick <span dir=3D= +"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:david.vorick@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">david= +.vorick@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div = +class=3D"gmail_quote"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0= + 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div>= +I see it as unreasonable to expect all nodes to upgrade during a hardfork. = +If you are intentionally waiting for that to happen, it's possible for = +an extreme minority of nodes to hold the rest of the network hostage by sim= +ply refusing to upgrade. However you want nodes to be able to protest until= + it is clear that they have lost the battle without being at risk of gettin= +g hardforked out of the network unexpectedly.<br></div></div></blockquote><= +div><br></div><div>You can't observe the majority of nodes, only miners= +, and weighed by hashrate. If you need a mechanism for protest, that should= + happen before the hard fork change code is rolled out. I am assuming a com= +pletely uncontroversial change, in order to not confuse this discussion wit= +h the debate about what hard forks should be done.<br><br></div><div>So I a= +m not talking about protest, just about deploying a change. And yes, it is = +unreasonable to expect that every single node will upgrade. But there is a = +difference between ignoring old unmaintained nodes that do not influence an= +yone's behaviour, and ignoring the nodes that power miners producing ac= +tual blocks. In addition, having no blocks on the old chain is safer than p= +roducing a small number, as you want full nodes that have not noticed the f= +ork to fail rather than see a slow but otherwise functional chain.<br><br>-= +- <br></div><div>Pieter<br></div><div><br></div></div></div></div> + +--001a1133d13caf09210518f6f951-- + + |