Message-ID: <5270CBC1.7080506@monetize.io>
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 02:05:05 -0700
From: Mark Friedenbach <mark@monetize.io>
Organization: Monetize.io Inc.
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8;
	rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
References: <274a1888-276c-4aa6-a818-68f548fbe0fa@me.com>	<9DCDB8F6-E3B2-426B-A41E-087E66B3821A@gmail.com>	<526B45DB.2030200@jerviss.org>	<CABsx9T2OMA_u=S9yUh2j78QDuCDUorYctktuixjwAjqc6neW=Q@mail.gmail.com>	<526DD18A.7060201@jerviss.org>
	<l4lajm$3ga$1@ger.gmane.org>	<CAAS2fgSuL4f9Sdg2CyK-EuCKK04gD98zHDoKFyTg_Fp_cNiz=A@mail.gmail.com>	<CABsx9T3p6KFc8FiOgBwLtQsmkETE_iUbMhO47pS7J3hi3a9_4w@mail.gmail.com>	<CANEZrP1teOnb=Gt_Nybh0jfQopK06Ps34Hy73OxOpHwuz-iZig@mail.gmail.com>	<20131029101452.GA15808@savin>	<7a22afbd-ad30-4748-8c88-9a1eda3e2fe9@email.android.com>	<CANEZrP2cu7WJs2TbrFxFibwAHDVbxb7EJQ3mOrVs+ZQm-uU1LQ@mail.gmail.com>	<CABsx9T25sqq5ps+ePgc+tH+ns8ygahpYztgga0DuqgoQj9tpzQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CANEZrP0fU3M3o4ZgBormcuRvkipM0tjNG+StA_QC90UbcpxdGA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CANEZrP0fU3M3o4ZgBormcuRvkipM0tjNG+StA_QC90UbcpxdGA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Feedback requested: "reject" p2p message
Precedence: list

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

If I understand the code correctly, it's not about rejecting blocks.
It's about noticing that >50% of recent blocks are declaring a version
number that is meaningless to you. Chances are, there's been a soft
fork and you should upgrade.

On 10/30/13 1:24 AM, Mike Hearn wrote:
> 
> But if you are getting soft-forked recent versions of the
> reference implementation WILL alert you; see this code in
> main.cpp:
> 
> 
> Perhaps I'm confused about how we're using the term soft fork. My 
> understanding is that this is where a new upgrade is designed to
> look valid to old nodes, and if you don't upgrade you rely on the
> miner majority to get you "back on track". For instance, P2SH was
> done this way - old nodes that didn't upgrade during that
> transition believed all spends of P2SH outputs were valid, even
> those spending someone elses coins.
> 
> In this case, the code you cite won't do anything because your
> client will never reject a block during a soft-forking upgrade,
> even if it does something that's supposed to be invalid or
> nonsensical.
> 
> If a new block version changes the serialization format or script 
> language or SIGHASH rules such that old clients reject the block,
> then they will end up on a hard fork and the alerting code will
> trigger, which is correct and as it should be.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.19 (Darwin)
Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
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=FSQI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----