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
|
Return-Path: <luke@dashjr.org>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 88FAA826
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 2 Dec 2016 04:18:55 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from zinan.dashjr.org (zinan.dashjr.org [192.3.11.21])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D3751B5
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 2 Dec 2016 04:18:55 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from ishibashi.localnet (unknown
[IPv6:2001:470:5:265:a45d:823b:2d27:961c])
(Authenticated sender: luke-jr)
by zinan.dashjr.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4940538AB8E3;
Fri, 2 Dec 2016 04:18:24 +0000 (UTC)
X-Hashcash: 1:25:161202:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org::6yM9Un/SIlsHY9Ox:cnkF9
X-Hashcash: 1:25:161202:jtimon@jtimon.cc::XAxKj7z9IgSOunW/:aJ99T
X-Hashcash: 1:25:161202:jl2012@xbt.hk::lRlEBfivrWHE9yz1:c0le
From: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org>
To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org,
Jorge =?iso-8859-1?q?Tim=F3n?= <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2016 04:18:21 +0000
User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/4.4.31-gentoo; KDE/4.14.24; x86_64; ; )
References: <08F5E788-8680-4BBE-8871-73FF022C52DB@xbt.hk>
<CABm2gDoQ8_Wpc+zCwf-sbUhLYYy-cjdO2dgvzADQX9PAq+yYnw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABm2gDoQ8_Wpc+zCwf-sbUhLYYy-cjdO2dgvzADQX9PAq+yYnw@mail.gmail.com>
X-PGP-Key-Fingerprint: E463 A93F 5F31 17EE DE6C 7316 BD02 9424 21F4 889F
X-PGP-Key-ID: BD02942421F4889F
X-PGP-Keyserver: hkp://pgp.mit.edu
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <201612020418.23011.luke@dashjr.org>
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD
autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] New BIP: Hardfork warning system
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: Fri, 02 Dec 2016 04:18:55 -0000
On Friday, December 02, 2016 1:42:46 AM Jorge Tim=F3n via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> We can already warn users of a hardfork when a block is invalid (at
> least) because of the highest bit in nVersion (as you say, because it
> is forbidden since bip34 was deployed).
The difference is that right now, full nodes will happily follow a shorter=
=20
best-valid chain. This BIP would require them to hold back at the best-comm=
on=20
block between the best-valid chain and the invalid chain, forcing the user =
to=20
make a decision whether to reject the invalid chain permanently, or upgrade=
to=20
a version which can understand that chain as valid.
> It seems the softfork serves only to warn about soft-hardforks, assuming =
it
> chooses to use this mechanism (which a malicious soft hardfork may not do=
).
Note: a malicious "SHF" is not a SHF at all, but an "evil fork".
> In fact, you could reuse another of the prohibited bits to signal a soft-
> hardfork while distinguishing it from a regular hardfork. And this will a=
lso
> serve for old nodes that have not upgraded to the softfork. But, wait,
> if you signal a soft-hardfork with an invalid bit, it's not a
> soft-hardfork anymore, is it? It's simply a hardfork.
Nodes implementing this BIP will see it as a simple hardfork, but will=20
intentionally provide equivalent behaviour as older nodes which see it as a=
=20
soft-hardfork. In other words, all [compatible] hardforks will now behave l=
ike=20
a soft-hardfork without any special DMMS design.
If Bitcoin's eventual hardfork is far enough down the road (such that no no=
des=20
remain from before this BIP are adopted), the SHF design could be safely do=
ne=20
away with entirely. And either way, it makes it easier to resist an un-
consented-to hardfork.
Luke
|
