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
|
Return-Path: <hearn@vinumeris.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2B5101B97
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 28 Sep 2015 13:41:58 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-ig0-f176.google.com (mail-ig0-f176.google.com
[209.85.213.176])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7DCF7170
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 28 Sep 2015 13:41:57 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by igcpb10 with SMTP id pb10so55538438igc.1
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 28 Sep 2015 06:41:57 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=vinumeris.com; s=google;
h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
:cc:content-type;
bh=2Gz5gcAL8lLJ6RCxG0J6jysqv6GFSnKwCwyBf/bn0ZA=;
b=TPt07JK50gQRhWgKSPiup2QF5+9c+OY+Rrdi2R1fXJQ7qVH+mdVhWjJ492oGM4Z7Z9
7qKu5my142HJFlk7b4DjqDJWeHRu26SLLWF9JnI1us8f1HT2DAiEqmTLUkMfeBwYe54x
6lQqZA+k8V9Eias6uBuvNBVrc1yv14ApSwZ2s=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date
:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type;
bh=2Gz5gcAL8lLJ6RCxG0J6jysqv6GFSnKwCwyBf/bn0ZA=;
b=MPd8TVYl9lf7beWR0q33Y9DjpNbPmxOlgcnL8v6KgnceiZj9MHduaaKtB8cVr2o4eY
4uSb1GPPRLydzf/ihns/9wMUO2s5XidYhJUMAY8jnM5L/1cAO/e3+KkWqPU8aSk68nQI
TWdPQkeCnsJx6l0WM0Ws2c2N5VrvxUscU5D64HmnOHw4g9TyQx8MbEzpkoQWDTZEHxxS
rpdjpBSurTlMLxeBdMkLWwXbHfQRPLl+JiKQD5MxXQe9WSlykEs8N3W8/f2HCBBV0biN
Tv+RYHutE+GKMRAGV3EW2Db/kABqQm454M6LoHesty9ygEXLCqFECdVFHmJL7RwptBbn
LgXA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmPTW5+FYepkadFZyHT9iWBd7OygDzAOP5K+fc/YrFBFPQYs8XfdZam+wpaBPveu7MiR3Uw
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.66.146 with SMTP id f18mr16201825igt.83.1443447716957;
Mon, 28 Sep 2015 06:41:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.50.226.144 with HTTP; Mon, 28 Sep 2015 06:41:56 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20150928132127.GA4829@savin.petertodd.org>
References: <20150927185031.GA20599@savin.petertodd.org>
<CA+w+GKRCVr-9TVk66utp7xLRgTxNpxYoj3XQE-6y_N8JS6eO6Q@mail.gmail.com>
<20150928132127.GA4829@savin.petertodd.org>
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2015 15:41:56 +0200
Message-ID: <CA+w+GKTCZDNVJ-XEmsCAWGXUV3xOzVYmqMQYm0x+ihyYWQN0Gg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mike Hearn <hearn@vinumeris.com>
To: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bdc09f66c0db80520cedc60
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham
version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Let's deploy BIP65 CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY!
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Development 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: Mon, 28 Sep 2015 13:41:58 -0000
--047d7bdc09f66c0db80520cedc60
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> 1) Do you agree that CLTV should be added to the Bitcoin protocol?
>
> Ignoring the question how exactly it is added, hard-fork or soft-fork.
>
The opcode definition seems OK.
> 2) Will you add a IsSuperMajority() CLTV soft-fork to Bitcoin XT if it
> is added to Bitcoin Core?
>
Yes. It might be worth putting the version bit change behind a command line
flag though: the BIP, as written, has problems (with deployment).
> 3) Will you add soft-fork detection to bitcoinj, to allow SPV clients to
detect advertised soft-forks and correctly handle them?
>
I'd really hate to do that. It'd be a Rube Goldberg machine:
https://krypt3ia.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/rube.jpg
There's no really good way to do what you propose, and we already have a
perfectly workable mechanism to tell SPV clients about chain forks: the
block chain itself. This has the advantage of being already implemented,
already deployed, and it works correctly.
Attempting to strap a different mechanism on top to try and make soft forks
more like hard forks would be a large and pointless waste of people's time
and effort, not just mine (bitcoinj is not the only widely used SPV
implementation nowadays). You may as well go straight to the correct
outcome instead of trying to simulate it with ever more complex mechanisms.
--047d7bdc09f66c0db80520cedc60
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"><blo=
ckquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left=
-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;paddi=
ng-left:1ex">1) Do you agree that CLTV should be added to the Bitcoin proto=
col?<br>
<br>
Ignoring the question how exactly it is added, hard-fork or soft-fork.<br><=
/blockquote><div><br></div><div>The opcode definition seems OK.</div><div>=
=C2=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0=
.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-s=
tyle:solid;padding-left:1ex">2) Will you add a IsSuperMajority() CLTV soft-=
fork to Bitcoin XT if it<br>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0is added to Bitcoin Core?<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>=
Yes. It might be worth putting the version bit change behind a command line=
flag though: the BIP, as written, has problems (with deployment).</div><di=
v>=C2=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px=
0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left=
-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">3) Will you add soft-fork detection to bitco=
inj, to allow SPV clients to=C2=A0</blockquote><blockquote class=3D"gmail_q=
uote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-c=
olor:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">=C2=A0 =C2=
=A0detect advertised soft-forks and correctly handle them?<br></blockquote>=
<div><br></div><div>I'd really hate to do that. It'd be a Rube Gold=
berg machine:</div><div><br></div><div>=C2=A0 =C2=A0<a href=3D"https://kryp=
t3ia.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/rube.jpg">https://krypt3ia.files.wordpress=
.com/2011/11/rube.jpg</a><br></div><div><br></div><div>There's no reall=
y good way to do what you propose, and we already have a perfectly workable=
mechanism to tell SPV clients about chain forks: the block chain itself. T=
his has the advantage of being already implemented, already deployed, and i=
t works correctly.</div><div><br></div><div>Attempting to strap a different=
mechanism on top to try and make soft forks more like hard forks would be =
a large and pointless waste of people's time and effort, not just mine =
(bitcoinj is not the only widely used SPV implementation nowadays). You may=
as well go straight to the correct outcome instead of trying to simulate i=
t with ever more complex mechanisms.</div></div></div></div>
--047d7bdc09f66c0db80520cedc60--
|
