Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
Content-Type: multipart/signed;
	boundary="Apple-Mail=_E8EC9A5F-95A4-4FFC-8068-E514E8CA7DC7";
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
From: Jonathan Toomim <j@toom.im>
In-Reply-To: <6fc10e581a81abb76be5cd49275ebf48@openmailbox.org>
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2015 05:29:05 -0800
Message-Id: <8E12B367-1A55-435F-9244-101C09094BDA@toom.im>
References: <6fc10e581a81abb76be5cd49275ebf48@openmailbox.org>
To: joe2015@openmailbox.org
Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] An implementation of BIP102 as a softfork.
Precedence: list


--Apple-Mail=_E8EC9A5F-95A4-4FFC-8068-E514E8CA7DC7
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=us-ascii

As a first impression, I think this proposal is intellectually =
interesting, but crufty and hackish and should never actually be =
deployed. Writing code for Bitcoin in a future in which we have deployed =
a few generalized softforks this way sounds terrifying.

Instead of this:

    CTransaction GetTransaction(CBlock block, unsigned int index) {
        return block->vtx[index];
    }

We might have this:

    CTransaction GetTransaction(CBlock block, unsigned int index) {
        if (!IsBIP102sBlock(block)) {
            return block->vtx[index];
        } else {
            if (!IsOtherGeneralizedSoftforkBlock(block)) {
                // hooray! only one generalized softfork level to deal =
with!
                return =
LookupBlock(GetGSHashFromCoinbase(block->vtx[0].vin[0].scriptSig))->vtx[in=
dex];
           } else {
               throw NotImplementedError; // I'm too lazy to write =
pseudocode this complicated just to argue a point
        }
    }

It might be possible to make that a bit simpler with recursion, or by =
doing subsequent generalized softforks in a way that doesn't have =
multi-levels-deep block-within-a-block-within-a-block stuff. Still: ugh.


On Dec 29, 2015, at 9:46 PM, joe2015--- via bitcoin-dev =
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> Below is a proof-of-concept implementation of BIP102 as a softfork:
>=20
> https://github.com/ZoomT/bitcoin/tree/2015_2mb_blocksize
> =
https://github.com/jgarzik/bitcoin/compare/2015_2mb_blocksize...ZoomT:2015=
_2mb_blocksize?diff=3Dsplit&name=3D2015_2mb_blocksize
>=20
> BIP102 is normally a hardfork.  The softfork version (unofficial
> codename BIP102s) uses the idea described here:
> =
http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-December/01207=
3.html
>=20
> The basic idea is that post-fork blocks are constructed in such a way
> they can be mapped to valid blocks under the pre-fork rules.  BIP102s
> is a softfork in the sense that post-fork miners are still creating a
> valid chain under the old rules, albeit indirectly.
>=20
> =46rom the POV of non-upgraded clients, BIP102s circumvents the
> block-size limit by moving transaction validation data "outside" of
> the block.  This is a similar trick used by Segregated Witness and
> Extension Blocks (both softfork proposals).
>=20
> =46rom the POV of upgraded clients, the block layout is unchanged,
> except:
> - A larger 2MB block-size limit (=3DBIP102);
> - The header Merkle root has a new (backwards compatible)
>  interpretation;
> - The coinbase encodes the Merkle root of the remaining txs.
> Aside from this, blocks maintain their original format, i.e. a block
> header followed by a vector of transactions.  This keeps the
> implementation simple, and is distinct from SW and EB.
>=20
> Since BIP102s is a softfork it means that:
> - A miner majority (e.g. 75%, 95%) force miner consensus (100%).  This
>  is not true for a hardfork.
> - Fraud risk is significantly reduced (6-conf unlikely depending on
>  activation threshold).
> This should address some of the concerns with deploying a block-size
> increase using a hardfork.
>=20
> Notes:
>=20
> - The same basic idea could be adapted to any of the other proposals
>  (BIP101, 2-4-8, BIP202, etc.).
> - I used Jeff Garzik's BIP102 implementation which is incomplete (?).
>  The activation logic is left unchanged.
> - I am not a Bitcoin dev so hopefully no embarrassing mistakes in my
>  code :-(
>=20
> --joe
>=20
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev


--Apple-Mail=_E8EC9A5F-95A4-4FFC-8068-E514E8CA7DC7
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename=signature.asc
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature;
	name=signature.asc
Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org

iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJWg9whAAoJEIEuMk4MG0P1iW8H/ie47pnBcQXkB36LKP9UEceh
fTGBsrImiNnDEUt07vu+7qHe8ia3s4+sX/6j6x+baJ0TRUU+elG4j5dsU+SwScBr
oaWsYFIS/kNS9NeoQ+l/vXz5VUHPCbajCbNVR/nubrgHujx1tf1I1pNoIRd5e824
IlPw++MQkka5c6k1ufYarynuvdrft2izTqe2oOGlrHQ12P63mu1XwsWXcdIkFa7O
cuuCo2X05VMk6PADJ1+KqG4iKImOKtukaB/aGoHoFrkf5k1o8ajjMqBSptrmaf3T
LflnMjcAqGKiNPp1kB63+Bl4JgTGvhMqIsdO/EQwzfqS8KxXwm0qwVql52oJmyk=
=pEPv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--Apple-Mail=_E8EC9A5F-95A4-4FFC-8068-E514E8CA7DC7--