MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CALd2G5dCLHDxV6Daq6q=AMuW8ytPGMKjAdXHxZzsUccJbKJKSg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5b9ba6c4-6d8f-9c0b-2420-2be6c30f87b5@cannon-ciota.info>
	<35ba77db-f95a-4517-c960-8ad42a633ba0@gmail.com>
	<f4849cef-3c40-31a4-e323-6a731bb52bc2@cannon-ciota.info>
	<9C2A6867-470D-4336-8439-17F4E0CA4B17@gmx.com>
	<CAPWm=eV2aLJKMM_5T-jaXCm1umRFxy+vfirBqCGAvUKHtOphQg@mail.gmail.com>
	<9EB5050D-E54E-4E8B-84C6-95CC1FAC4081@gmx.com>
	<CABaSBayb-FAt0XOX9u+T3-Z2gJQAV-Y7xZS_k6YG74VhPqejQA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALd2G5dCLHDxV6Daq6q=AMuW8ytPGMKjAdXHxZzsUccJbKJKSg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Bryan Bishop <kanzure@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2017 15:44:12 -0500
Message-ID: <CABaSBaxopw2yUW6p7YKCWiYgARiG4CB7WpxMQ5eqZJzNHJfXfA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Trevin Hofmann <trevinhofmann@gmail.com>, Bryan Bishop <kanzure@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c04fb4a23f58f054ba84a95
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Defending against empty or near empty blocks from
 malicious miner takeover?
Precedence: list

--94eb2c04fb4a23f58f054ba84a95
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Sun, Mar 26, 2017 at 3:37 PM, Trevin Hofmann <trevinhofmann@gmail.com>
wrote:

> He stated that "any invalid blocks they produce" will be orphaned. This is
> not false. If non-upgraded miners do not produce blocks that are invalid
> per the new rules, their blocks will not be orphaned. This is consistent
> with Peter's comment.


It's the other part of the statement- the "wakeup call to upgrade" from
producing invalid blocks? They aren't producing invalid blocks.
Additionally, if they want to be even more sure about this, they can run
the so-called "border nodes". No wakeup calls needed.... the point of a
soft-fork is to reduce incompatibility.

- Bryan
http://heybryan.org/
1 512 203 0507

--94eb2c04fb4a23f58f054ba84a95
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On S=
un, Mar 26, 2017 at 3:37 PM, Trevin Hofmann <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=
=3D"mailto:trevinhofmann@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">trevinhofmann@gmail.c=
om</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"marg=
in:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">He stated that &=
quot;any invalid blocks they produce&quot; will be orphaned. This is not fa=
lse. If non-upgraded miners do not produce blocks that are invalid per the =
new rules, their blocks will not be orphaned. This is consistent with Peter=
&#39;s comment.</blockquote></div><br>It&#39;s the other part of the statem=
ent- the &quot;wakeup call to upgrade&quot; from producing invalid blocks? =
They aren&#39;t producing invalid blocks. Additionally, if they want to be =
even more sure about this, they can run the so-called &quot;border nodes&qu=
ot;. No wakeup calls needed.... the point of a soft-fork is to reduce incom=
patibility.<br><div><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_signature" data-smartmail=
=3D"gmail_signature">- Bryan<br><a href=3D"http://heybryan.org/" target=3D"=
_blank">http://heybryan.org/</a><br>1 512 203 0507</div>
</div></div>

--94eb2c04fb4a23f58f054ba84a95--