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
|
Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <gronager@ceptacle.com>) id 1UFOoc-0001cf-QZ
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 12 Mar 2013 13:00:26 +0000
X-ACL-Warn:
Received: from 2508ds5-oebr.1.fullrate.dk ([90.184.5.129]
helo=mail.ceptacle.com)
by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
id 1UFOoa-0004S1-EN for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 12 Mar 2013 13:00:26 +0000
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by mail.ceptacle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0B362B867D8;
Tue, 12 Mar 2013 14:00:18 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ceptacle.com
Received: from mail.ceptacle.com ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (server.ceptacle.private [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new,
port 10024)
with ESMTP id QzLjqGBSALZS; Tue, 12 Mar 2013 14:00:18 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [109.105.106.206] (unknown [109.105.106.206])
by mail.ceptacle.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C9DFF2B867C2;
Tue, 12 Mar 2013 14:00:17 +0100 (CET)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\))
From: Michael Gronager <gronager@ceptacle.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAAS2fgSOxon1m79gA_afgG7ypHRJfurb4ydZuCBgb_sSy1HG+w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 14:00:13 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <5F4490C7-8846-4AA7-AF9B-9A02DDEC6245@ceptacle.com>
References: <CAPg+sBip_4Jtxhq+rm-na2=RSJ_PuoZt+akGgJyo0b_Bwbr1Dw@mail.gmail.com>
<CAPg+sBjm+e=A+edSRHXU7JSqyfSc4hou_SRdQHF48xhKQGA4zA@mail.gmail.com>
<CANEZrP2V9uDQ-dmyaUBbsCuj5u3Mrh+jvU9RDpYkrKQV6+t0tQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CAAS2fgSOxon1m79gA_afgG7ypHRJfurb4ydZuCBgb_sSy1HG+w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499)
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
X-Headers-End: 1UFOoa-0004S1-EN
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Warning: many 0.7 nodes break on large
number of tx/block; fork risk
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 13:00:27 -0000
>> Forks are caused by rejection criteria, hence:
>> 1. If you introduce new rejection criteria in an upgrade miners =
should upgrade _first_.
>> 2. If you loosen some rejection criteria miners should upgrade =
_last_.
>> 3. If you keep the same criteria assume 2.
>=20
> And ... if you aren't aware that you're making a change ???
then only half should upgrade :-P
Well I thought I covered that by 3... But, question is of course if we =
could have been in a situation where 0.8 had been the one rejecting =
blocks?=20
So miners could go with a filtering approach: only connect to the =
network through a node of a version one less than the current. That =
would still have caused block 225430 to be created, but it would never =
have been relayed and hence no harm. (and if the issue had been in 0.8 =
the block would not even have been accepted there in the first place). =
Downside is some lost seconds.
/M
|
