summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorJorge Timón <jtimon@jtimon.cc>2015-09-30 18:14:42 +0200
committerbitcoindev <bitcoindev@gnusha.org>2015-09-30 16:14:45 +0000
commita5aa840807d50b2497de47071ae89d4bf2389c8b (patch)
tree4054e25c3560da831629befbacef7970c5eabaf2
parentf9f0ef823828acce0ab7460656d72d287e6144a5 (diff)
downloadpi-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--e4/4b3b0f64435046150376d3ee8c5cff598d71f0168
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
+>
+