diff options
author | Jorge Timón <jtimon@jtimon.cc> | 2015-09-30 18:14:42 +0200 |
---|---|---|
committer | bitcoindev <bitcoindev@gnusha.org> | 2015-09-30 16:14:45 +0000 |
commit | a5aa840807d50b2497de47071ae89d4bf2389c8b (patch) | |
tree | 4054e25c3560da831629befbacef7970c5eabaf2 | |
parent | f9f0ef823828acce0ab7460656d72d287e6144a5 (diff) | |
download | pi-bitcoindev-a5aa840807d50b2497de47071ae89d4bf2389c8b.tar.gz pi-bitcoindev-a5aa840807d50b2497de47071ae89d4bf2389c8b.zip |
Re: [bitcoin-dev] Is it possible for there to be two chains after a hard fork?
-rw-r--r-- | e4/4b3b0f64435046150376d3ee8c5cff598d71f0 | 168 |
1 files changed, 168 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/e4/4b3b0f64435046150376d3ee8c5cff598d71f0 b/e4/4b3b0f64435046150376d3ee8c5cff598d71f0 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..288f8402e --- /dev/null +++ b/e4/4b3b0f64435046150376d3ee8c5cff598d71f0 @@ -0,0 +1,168 @@ +Return-Path: <jtimon@jtimon.cc> +Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org + [172.17.192.35]) + by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 355D31BBF + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Wed, 30 Sep 2015 16:14:45 +0000 (UTC) +X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 +Received: from mail-wi0-f179.google.com (mail-wi0-f179.google.com + [209.85.212.179]) + by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 62946268 + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Wed, 30 Sep 2015 16:14:44 +0000 (UTC) +Received: by wiclk2 with SMTP id lk2so206294495wic.0 + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Wed, 30 Sep 2015 09:14:43 -0700 (PDT) +X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; + d=1e100.net; s=20130820; + h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date + :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; + bh=ZKRLrse36OLuxWHW+Zd8XrjPdBjUKh4CSfvSJOqRNSM=; + b=SnLu3qURXH0VxAtz4Uv0vEg1RDXX/IzI+f1wEysZAwJgc0TJNEJA7LIj6nNp0Qdoua + UtjkdFU0TpmGr/2xuoC+pWqfu+Q0EMUanfLNOZyb6cLFUucuycgFZgmFrfTGssFM0KEA + f7EsfBLczAQTvOlfXjSToGv2MpHW6aK9VZyQd2MKOtxEFx8WfBViu+6cpQGccv91ZdSo + pNRSLQn+AqlxW7CoQT/YkA8rLpZWUy2owg+iRijIhDuX/QaKD5XBJOzpwH0EULzYf+BH + K6dfGa/lNqckbLRJFk2ziZBs2EBwmj/gbwkGgl7VHUXMFO00JS9zToVF8Y2Cc+Kznpwp + fg8g== +X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkERARFPXj3NTi7D7l+5dljp2YBKYG1Bf97k/GEfSunhy8Trdsfj81FbULDYqARjeRHq9GE +MIME-Version: 1.0 +X-Received: by 10.180.8.106 with SMTP id q10mr5403364wia.92.1443629682969; + Wed, 30 Sep 2015 09:14:42 -0700 (PDT) +Received: by 10.194.114.199 with HTTP; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 09:14:42 -0700 (PDT) +In-Reply-To: <CAJfRnm4xNozyynxoTQS25FTCcOw_hwfFfV1V-mVfq+qZ+Q8jVQ@mail.gmail.com> +References: <CABsx9T2pDwNBrC-3w8vHeaLYZ6eoNTNU0gW741Y51YL9hU-kiA@mail.gmail.com> + <CAJfRnm7gWmXUj=9Dh2o5sEXOMe6Y_4P=naY3cVt1gfLRKOpmnw@mail.gmail.com> + <CABsx9T0YEm7mFYosRVbcG_XgtSi8BbUraGoixy4e2=nyCBeFaA@mail.gmail.com> + <CAJfRnm5=yrWE95T3+fzM_PxGxWJ38OnJMVxynTOKK1X9BTrgCg@mail.gmail.com> + <CA+w+GKTVzaEqWeR9m2ck6z3WZ_OWJ5hgkqyQhriJDLPVoHzfGQ@mail.gmail.com> + <CAJfRnm4WwtNvChcCGCzDLJZrg3VZqJz-X-XXC0Ftyga3x=P8-w@mail.gmail.com> + <CABsx9T07DUjWoEmqmysya90Fxf4RkM7K18ZaP7pP3Hgk5rN-_Q@mail.gmail.com> + <CAJfRnm4xNozyynxoTQS25FTCcOw_hwfFfV1V-mVfq+qZ+Q8jVQ@mail.gmail.com> +Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 18:14:42 +0200 +Message-ID: <CABm2gDrNLhV-B_+BCFj5FbTZkTuFctTMQZSV45rQAGK8eGbHmg@mail.gmail.com> +From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= <jtimon@jtimon.cc> +To: Allen Piscitello <allen.piscitello@gmail.com> +Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 +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] Is it possible for there to be two chains after a + hard fork? +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: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 16:14:45 -0000 + +Gavin, you assume that users must necessarily always follow the +hashrate majority, but this is not true. +In fact, it is the opposite: market forces make the hashrate follow the users. +Not following the hashrate majority is not necessarily insane. + +If some users aren't happy with the new hardfork rules, they may never +upgrade. This is discussed (although I want to improve the text) under +the "Schism hardforks" section of BIP99 (which you may have some +complaints against, so please review +https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/181/files#diff-e331b8631759a4ed6a4cfb4d10f473caR135 +). + +It is true that users of chain A may sell or their B-coins, but the +opposite is also true: users in chain B may sell all their A-coins. +Speculators will likely sell both and probably not buy again until the +initial uncertainty is gone (or they may never buy again, nobody can +predict this). + +Let's use an example. Let's assume that a hardfork is rolled out to +completely remove the blocksize limit (I believe you would be against +that from previous conversations with you). +As long as there are users creating demand for the old-coins, there +will be miners mining the old coins. +This is not insane for neither users or miners no matter how big the +majority of users and/or miners in the new rules chain. + +Again, probably the best place to discuss this kind of thing is +https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/181 or the bitcoin-dev thread +linked from the BIP ( +http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-June/008936.html +). + + +On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 8:23 PM, Allen Piscitello via bitcoin-dev +<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: +>>I started this thread as a sanity check on myself, because I keep seeing +>> smart people saying that two chains could persist for more than a few days +>> after a hard fork, and I still don't see how that would possibly work. +> +> When you start with the assumption that anyone who disagrees with you is +> insane or crazy, I can see why you have such difficulty. +> +> +> On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 1:01 PM, Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com> +> wrote: +>> +>> We really shouldn't have to go over "Bitcoin 101" on this mailing list, +>> and this discussion should move to the not-yet-created more general +>> discussion list. I started this thread as a sanity check on myself, because +>> I keep seeing smart people saying that two chains could persist for more +>> than a few days after a hard fork, and I still don't see how that would +>> possibly work. +>> +>> So: "fraud" would be 51% miners sending you bitcoin in exchange for +>> something of value, you wait for confirmations and send them that something +>> of value, and then the 51% reverses the transaction. +>> +>> Running a full node doesn't help. +>> +>> On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 1:55 PM, Allen Piscitello +>> <allen.piscitello@gmail.com> wrote: +>>> +>>> >A dishonest miner majority can commit fraud against you, they can mine +>>> > only empty blocks, they can do various other things that render your money +>>> > worthless. +>>> +>>> Mining empty blocks is not fraud. +>>> +>>> If you want to use terms like "honest miners" and "fraud", please define +>>> them so we can at least be on the same page. +>>> +>>> I am defining an honest miner as one that follows the rules of the +>>> protocol. Obviously your definition is different. +>>> +>>> On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 12:51 PM, Mike Hearn <hearn@vinumeris.com> wrote: +>>>>> +>>>>> >because Bitcoin's basic security assumption is that a supermajority of +>>>>> > miners are 'honest.' +>>>>> +>>>>> Only if you rely on SPV. +>>>> +>>>> +>>>> No, you rely on miners honesty even if you run a full node. This is in +>>>> the white paper. A dishonest miner majority can commit fraud against you, +>>>> they can mine only empty blocks, they can do various other things that +>>>> render your money worthless. +>>> +>>> +>> +>> +>> +>> -- +>> -- +>> Gavin Andresen +> +> +> +> _______________________________________________ +> bitcoin-dev mailing list +> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org +> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev +> + |