Return-Path: <digitsu@gmail.com> Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E02A31072 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; Wed, 30 Dec 2015 17:58:47 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-pa0-f52.google.com (mail-pa0-f52.google.com [209.85.220.52]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 52B95181 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; Wed, 30 Dec 2015 17:58:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pa0-f52.google.com with SMTP id yy13so48772191pab.3 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; Wed, 30 Dec 2015 09:58:47 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=content-transfer-encoding:content-type:from:mime-version:subject :message-id:date:to:cc; bh=EuA3CYuJ4tJx45UislkGGf12LaCpZIk3JYDfYNQbrYs=; b=SR6B99npNXXlpc5j298xzrjkZxoDIHv+wk7nO3q7gVsaAlY02U/qD4c2JrwFemskWp LGFfhXwPARrdUx5mfskqO+w366dkOR30uCwXg5tWoBJnhaYMw8uGrEb3WPkjdYRwq4YH XiM9lHwd/I1lDAwSsHnPo39V/6r4zetbJFu8jYUFYVj69YtLdW6MyhtNefcvcAJmx/3V sDi6OVUU/+qviO5JASS+cr53oHlyzGb4t0reuba0dp3R8C46C3Pr/kEjuHoZHhCKDoGg r08D3vyuJIKANzMLvbInnVGn3Pk+YNeJQEhpAOhicHs2GzE2GeGJgWgu2dNF7mP0I7aG dnAg== X-Received: by 10.66.161.70 with SMTP id xq6mr94475616pab.73.1451498326953; Wed, 30 Dec 2015 09:58:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.70.214.138] (124x33x172x65.ap124.ftth.ucom.ne.jp. [124.33.172.65]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id n26sm85295779pfb.39.2015.12.30.09.58.45 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 30 Dec 2015 09:58:46 -0800 (PST) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-32521476-D42B-4BB1-A743-7FFF5E53FC5E From: David Chan <digitsu@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) Message-Id: <0DD6A08C-897A-49D6-BDDE-00C6B94DB281@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2015 02:58:44 +0900 To: joe2015@openmailbox.org X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (13C75) X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, HTML_MESSAGE, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE, 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 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 30 Dec 2015 18:01:05 +0000 Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org Subject: [bitcoin-dev] Generalized soft forks 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 Dec 2015 17:58:48 -0000 --Apple-Mail-32521476-D42B-4BB1-A743-7FFF5E53FC5E Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Please forgive the perhaps pedantic question but in the referred document http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-December/012073.= html It talks about how a soft fork with >50% support will doom the other fork to= being orphaned eventually but that hard forks could persist forever. I fai= l to see why the same logic that one side having the majority will eventuall= y win wouldn't also apply to hard forks. =20 Additionally it seems to me that a notable difference between a generalized s= oft fork as described and a hard fork majority is in the process by which th= ey force the other fork to be orphaned. In a hard fork an unupgraded node wo= uld know you were in a forking situation due to your node getting a lot of b= locks from the other fork and having to reject them (because they are invali= d) whereas in a generalized soft fork you wouldn't know there was a fork goi= ng on so there would be less of an impetus to upgrade. Of course the downsi= de of the hard fork is that the losing side would potentially lose money in t= he orphaned chain, but presumably this discussion of generalized soft forks i= s with regards to non-mining nodes so it shouldn't come into consideration.=20= In fact if an non-upgraded miner were to start mining on top of that block w= hich they cannot actually fully validate essentially this condones mining wi= thout verification (and trusting that others which have upgraded nodes to ha= ve validated the txns for you) as this situation can continue for a prolonge= d period of time does this not hurt network security ? >> On 2015/12/31, at 1:27, joe2015--- via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.lin= uxfoundation.org> wrote: >>=20 >> On 2015-12-30 18:33, Marco Falke wrote: >> This is an interesting approach but I don't see how this is a soft >> fork. (Just because something is not a hard fork, doesn't make it a >> soft fork by definition) >> Softforks don't require any nodes to upgrade. [1] >> Nonetheless, as I understand your approach, it requires nodes to >> upgrade. Otherwise they are missing all transactions but the coinbase >> transactions. Thus, they cannot update their utxoset and are easily >> susceptible to double spends... >> Am I missing something obvious? >> -- Marco >> [1] https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Softfork#Implications >=20 > It just depends how you define "softfork". In my original write-up I call= ed it a "generalized" softfork, Peter suggested a "firm" fork, and there are= some suggestions for other names. Ultimately what you call it is not very i= mportant. >=20 > --joe. > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev --Apple-Mail-32521476-D42B-4BB1-A743-7FFF5E53FC5E Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <html><head><meta http-equiv=3D"content-type" content=3D"text/html; charset=3D= utf-8"></head><body dir=3D"auto"><div><span></span></div><div><span>Please f= orgive the perhaps pedantic question but in the referred document</span></di= v><div><a href=3D"http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/201= 5-December/012073.html">http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-d= ev/2015-December/012073.html</a></div><div>It talks about how a soft fork wi= th >50% support will doom the other fork to being orphaned eventually but= that hard forks could persist forever. I fail to see why the same log= ic that one side having the majority will eventually win wouldn't also apply= to hard forks. </div><div><br></div><div>Additionally it seems to me t= hat a notable difference between a generalized soft fork as described and a h= ard fork majority is in the process by which they force the other fork to be= orphaned. In a hard fork an unupgraded node would know you were in a forkin= g situation due to your node getting a lot of blocks from the other fork and= having to reject them (because they are invalid) whereas in a generalized s= oft fork you wouldn't know there was a fork going on so there would be less o= f an impetus to upgrade. Of course the downside of the hard fork is th= at the losing side would potentially lose money in the orphaned chain, but p= resumably this discussion of generalized soft forks is with regards to non-m= ining nodes so it shouldn't come into consideration. </div><div><br></d= iv><div>In fact if an non-upgraded miner were to start mining on top of that= block which they cannot actually fully validate essentially this condones m= ining without verification (and trusting that others which have upgraded nod= es to have validated the txns for you) as this situation can continue for a p= rolonged period of time does this not hurt network security ?</div><div><br>= </div><div><br><span></span><br><blockquote type=3D"cite"><span>On 2015/12/3= 1, at 1:27, joe2015--- via bitcoin-dev <<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lis= ts.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>> wrote:= </span><br></blockquote><blockquote type=3D"cite"><span></span><br></blockqu= ote><blockquote type=3D"cite"><blockquote type=3D"cite"><span>On 2015-12-30 1= 8:33, Marco Falke wrote:</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote typ= e=3D"cite"><blockquote type=3D"cite"><span>This is an interesting approach b= ut I don't see how this is a soft</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><block= quote type=3D"cite"><blockquote type=3D"cite"><span>fork. (Just because some= thing is not a hard fork, doesn't make it a</span><br></blockquote></blockqu= ote><blockquote type=3D"cite"><blockquote type=3D"cite"><span>soft fork by d= efinition)</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type=3D"cite"><bl= ockquote type=3D"cite"><span>Softforks don't require any nodes to upgrade. [= 1]</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type=3D"cite"><blockquote= type=3D"cite"><span>Nonetheless, as I understand your approach, it requires= nodes to</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type=3D"cite"><blo= ckquote type=3D"cite"><span>upgrade. Otherwise they are missing all transact= ions but the coinbase</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type=3D= "cite"><blockquote type=3D"cite"><span>transactions. Thus, they cannot updat= e their utxoset and are easily</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquo= te type=3D"cite"><blockquote type=3D"cite"><span>susceptible to double spend= s...</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type=3D"cite"><blockquo= te type=3D"cite"><span>Am I missing something obvious?</span><br></blockquot= e></blockquote><blockquote type=3D"cite"><blockquote type=3D"cite"><span>-- M= arco</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type=3D"cite"><blockquo= te type=3D"cite"><span>[1] <a href=3D"https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Softfork#Im= plications">https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Softfork#Implications</a></span><br><= /blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type=3D"cite"><span></span><br></blockq= uote><blockquote type=3D"cite"><span>It just depends how you define "softfor= k". In my original write-up I called it a "generalized" softfork, Pete= r suggested a "firm" fork, and there are some suggestions for other names. &= nbsp;Ultimately what you call it is not very important.</span><br></blockquo= te><blockquote type=3D"cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type=3D= "cite"><span>--joe.</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type=3D"cite"><span>_= ______________________________________________</span><br></blockquote><block= quote type=3D"cite"><span>bitcoin-dev mailing list</span><br></blockquote><b= lockquote type=3D"cite"><span><a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfound= ation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a></span><br></blockquote>= <blockquote type=3D"cite"><span><a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org= /mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/lis= tinfo/bitcoin-dev</a></span><br></blockquote></div></body></html>= --Apple-Mail-32521476-D42B-4BB1-A743-7FFF5E53FC5E--