1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
|
Return-Path: <eric@voskuil.org>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0F277256
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 15 Nov 2016 22:42:09 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-pf0-f180.google.com (mail-pf0-f180.google.com
[209.85.192.180])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8133F249
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 15 Nov 2016 22:42:08 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-pf0-f180.google.com with SMTP id d2so38463624pfd.0
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 15 Nov 2016 14:42:08 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=voskuil-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623;
h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc
:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to;
bh=5cE1l1C44j3wTobNCoCNXHhyKPNQfuZtHawCJHyNjKg=;
b=mJuL+rqi86g1SsaaubBonOe+sg9Vx4dmiXvURIi1xlV+f8PuEW3IbOlZ3o8ipomQt+
3d1w0nXUFEg0LYPZWtCtf8XIYiOBr5Ug37qFYrKp8LL7S9+rSnbHG8i61fChBPLTdb9V
seQCR+Hk7XMtfhQA3jEUmNHNjUqLtqeW7tVIONHsWhKDWa7epUm541E3HxXAmlqkaib+
v8nC2Hs/XO9DqiMFjrGHOa9RFLLG6OLnPfLA1xU/OkhYys802aSmJBRyIz0bXrLC5hlL
Af04djg1tgvzX2gT/6TPFp92F/WHorJdc79A7t8qWh7j/caWGqjgFUqckHdNYQc0EvkU
ySZw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc
:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to;
bh=5cE1l1C44j3wTobNCoCNXHhyKPNQfuZtHawCJHyNjKg=;
b=R0H/fzjxjV6+miDkC7OpjJPHpjgUueClX/P1f+toGR8cOCIWXh142wNtTrsgn/p6Gn
wokDv6QrUZWlv88FKPGU+qoOtLnnuoHSMLAELlQwhd3reqWVG726H7wE8Z9OSjQmsP9e
nEBEXAFv9OFN3lNhrzH/VISgiSzXHiZEpz1l9XVXBi0wlNtqBcOTlHaihvfumLnjdyMs
DD9EhStHnH2DOjAwpWckGEAi209mCqRciGAJ7eTlCqaZyxpa/tHBKeSxxyLTxqMj06SE
51BifyCZw0s3w57YRmRpSI+LlarZNbCG90D6li1km1wXvaev0UfrzkCFDjW1GTtbiQE2
dyTw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ABUngvcNf5QtlVmTWD9eyg7hT22xg+BOR+6U69ZDKxnHw3lkG8r4fGOmzZ8ZbSjIh6Tx8Q==
X-Received: by 10.99.56.19 with SMTP id f19mr923069pga.72.1479249728068;
Tue, 15 Nov 2016 14:42:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.93.138.214] (mobile-166-176-185-145.mycingular.net.
[166.176.185.145]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id
v77sm26290772pfa.85.2016.11.15.14.42.07
(version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128);
Tue, 15 Nov 2016 14:42:07 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
From: Eric Voskuil <eric@voskuil.org>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (14B100)
In-Reply-To: <CADJgMzunxU2-7Z_ZPafNY4BPRu0x9oeh6v2dg0nUYqxJbXeGYA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 14:42:05 -0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <33BFC318-0BB4-48DB-B5DC-08247FAC6E5A@voskuil.org>
References: <CAFp6fsGmynRXLCqKAA+iBXObGOZ2h3DVW8k5L9kSfbPmL1Y-QQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CEDAD65E-512A-43CA-9BD6-56F7D9E6897C@voskuil.org>
<CADJgMzunxU2-7Z_ZPafNY4BPRu0x9oeh6v2dg0nUYqxJbXeGYA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Btc Drak <btcdrak@gmail.com>
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE,
RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE 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, 16 Nov 2016 09:08:32 +0000
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] [BIP Proposal] Buried Deployments
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol 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: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 22:42:09 -0000
Actually this does nothing to provide justification for this consensus rule c=
hange. It is just an attempt to deflect criticism from the fact that it is s=
uch a change.
e
> On Nov 15, 2016, at 9:45 AM, Btc Drak <btcdrak@gmail.com> wrote:
>=20
> I think this is already covered in the BIP text:-
>=20
> "As of November 2016, the most recent of these changes (BIP 65,
> enforced since December 2015) has nearly 50,000 blocks built on top of
> it. The occurrence of such a reorg that would cause the activating
> block to be disconnected would raise fundamental concerns about the
> security assumptions of Bitcoin, a far bigger issue than any
> non-backwards compatible change.
>=20
> So while this proposal could theoretically result in a consensus
> split, it is extremely unlikely, and in particular any such
> circumstances would be sufficiently damaging to the Bitcoin network to
> dwarf any concerns about the effects of this proposed change."
>=20
>=20
> On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 6:47 PM, Eric Voskuil via bitcoin-dev
> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>> NACK
>>=20
>> Horrible precedent (hardcoding rule changes based on the assumption that
>> large forks indicate a catastrophic failure), extremely poor process
>> (already shipped, now the discussion), and not even a material performanc=
e
>> optimization (the checks are avoidable once activated until a sufficientl=
y
>> deep reorg deactivates them).
>>=20
>> e
>>=20
>> On Nov 14, 2016, at 10:17 AM, Suhas Daftuar via bitcoin-dev
>> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>=20
>> Hi,
>>=20
>> Recently Bitcoin Core merged a simplification to the consensus rules
>> surrounding deployment of BIPs 34, 66, and 65
>> (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8391), and though the change is a=
>> minor one, I thought it was worth documenting the rationale in a BIP for
>> posterity.
>>=20
>> Here's the abstract:
>>=20
>> Prior soft forks (BIP 34, BIP 65, and BIP 66) were activated via miner
>> signaling in block version numbers. Now that the chain has long since pas=
sed
>> the blocks at which those consensus rules have triggered, we can (as a
>> simplification and optimization) replace the trigger mechanism by caching=
>> the block heights at which those consensus rules became enforced.
>>=20
>> The full draft can be found here:
>>=20
>> https://github.com/sdaftuar/bips/blob/buried-deployments/bip-buried-deplo=
yments.mediawiki
>>=20
>> _______________________________________________
>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>=20
>>=20
>> _______________________________________________
>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>=20
|
