Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2015 00:04:42 +0000
From: Bob McElrath <bob_bitcoin@mcelrath.org>
To: Jonathan Toomim <j@toom.im>
Message-ID: <20151231000442.GK18200@mcelrath.org>
References: <1bf64a5b514d57ca37744ae5f5238149@openmailbox.org>
	<e170f3a10164019824edaafe5a04f067@xbt.hk>
	<f9ad1348fb7dedca35b594782fee7e0f@openmailbox.org>
	<20151230190043.GJ18200@mcelrath.org>
	<16BFC301-58C1-49F9-B2E5-A2C09C82A8CA@toom.im>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <16BFC301-58C1-49F9-B2E5-A2C09C82A8CA@toom.im>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Increasing the blocksize as a (generalized)
 softfork.
Precedence: list

Jonathan Toomim [j@toom.im] wrote:
> 
> The generalized softfork method has the advantage of being merge-mined

That's an over-generalization.  There are two kinds of soft-forks WRT mining,
those which:

1. involve new validation rules by data-hiding from non-upgraded modes
    (e.g. extension blocks, generalized softfork)
2. involve NO new validation logic (e.g. P2SH)

Miners which are not validating transactions *should* be deprived of revenue,
because their role is transaction validation, not simply brute forcing sha256d.

So I'm very strongly against this "generalized softfork" idea -- I also don't
see how upgraded nodes and non-upgraded nodes can possibly end up with the same
UTXO set.

> > Once a chain is seen to be 6 or more blocks ahead of my chain tip, we should
> > enter "zombie mode" and refuse to mine or relay
> 
> I like this method. However, it does have the problem of being voluntary. If
> nodes don't upgrade to a version that has the latent zombie gene long before a
> fork, then it does nothing.

Which is why it should be put into core long before forks.  ;-)

--
Cheers, Bob McElrath

"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong."
    -- H. L. Mencken