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
|
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 9949BB1E
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 17 Nov 2016 12:22:09 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-pf0-f182.google.com (mail-pf0-f182.google.com
[209.85.192.182])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 281417C
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 17 Nov 2016 12:22:09 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-pf0-f182.google.com with SMTP id 189so49423452pfz.3
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 17 Nov 2016 04:22:09 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=voskuil-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623;
h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version
:in-reply-to; bh=z4Oyufg0HcvXyRc5KuzZE39Nq+7/PDEhVbO0/LYMT9s=;
b=00hrBVBmCMV2vp+Wx+7VpKqjDst9IDCjr+qM1MHhM4dbFxFU14ABQUO8uQHOLqoPBz
LyWnlGo9m93rtSwtw3jk1DD8zt4uVns6mn+pbb2hRA8gGBFuvqDqSddsCrWjR8FH2rza
DZ9taP0Z1zD/YmUZ3fwZFfeduEqkmsOq0R+TfFrLVIeH/H1Lp9LLWccbtEEiLl2j4Dj/
uqEr5ywoqrO4A6DcS6gT2OsUmhIwxNz7rUH/pby9i7+9oC/B10oZQtOjSdJIK6QLkUe6
QE9XXZJUKjJh661M7BhrT9fKMZOCE0Oxqe042CYAaXtDZCArGUnHKajeSix/M0EfN1eO
tpbg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date
:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to;
bh=z4Oyufg0HcvXyRc5KuzZE39Nq+7/PDEhVbO0/LYMT9s=;
b=DDvzo1bOnt739f67ecWWtQo3tlfhPi3xNUt+InSiy6Zl68FXtCoKyImA9GY7/Gw4gb
PpazvJ7PJcFxBXkUCSVSmNighrHZwq0gB/hyjQtf0mMWxSMWF3PXKtCjtyGueZ6yBrxu
R/NGoD888uXqXB8RsFV0Njkl4I9zp6GNmKG/4ACSdxYRElJOwLw320DFn5y+lspafUxE
wQrEKvo0raLb2v2T1UT2fOPvS10eqVE+NgpHhHXTkbrDGZh0IpF304XPFsni9XrqvhKh
ZjsxBXIgeMnSWHVBzgfydDbma8mzwEIniy+0C44x3vwyMSmEdRqYXZgJ7gghsHJYXFPL
kFKQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ABUngvfSnPoFgqcuW6qlH4jWWvmK2d8T1512Dcn43BX5TmtsFIfWsBZ3mpycZNdck8cLcA==
X-Received: by 10.99.107.4 with SMTP id g4mr7210207pgc.108.1479385328714;
Thu, 17 Nov 2016 04:22:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPv6:2601:600:9000:d69e:8084:4206:2529:776d?
([2601:600:9000:d69e:8084:4206:2529:776d])
by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id
i76sm7105970pfk.89.2016.11.17.04.22.07
(version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128);
Thu, 17 Nov 2016 04:22:07 -0800 (PST)
To: Alex Morcos <morcos@gmail.com>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
References: <CABm2gDr2-MCiaFFjgUFP5Xc0fQfuqJ3=ZkrzjHqmOiwRZ50CBw@mail.gmail.com>
<d58ee114-00fd-23c8-9ca7-9a4b28c26f27@voskuil.org>
<CAE-z3OX5vak25UWcmBSe63OmoOVoGB394WmwyWwUcSxWeDOLhw@mail.gmail.com>
<e0e6679f-aec6-a579-667d-b5b58ea2360b@voskuil.org>
<CAE-z3OXfJa3Lewtrafm25bdfPa=eiarOAXBNbgc3ccTi7Qoe6A@mail.gmail.com>
<5ef23296-5909-a350-ab11-e717f8fffc41@voskuil.org>
<CAPWm=eW9X77+qQZGHkAOjN-k7KFwq06gKS6HOVOTE1+SmYBhWA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Eric Voskuil <eric@voskuil.org>
X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N0110
Message-ID: <34949746-c0c9-7f14-0e92-69d5a7d44b04@voskuil.org>
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 04:22:09 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/45.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAPWm=eW9X77+qQZGHkAOjN-k7KFwq06gKS6HOVOTE1+SmYBhWA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
protocol="application/pgp-signature";
boundary="HQVQNhxjAKHdbObmF0J7vTivF7XK4A9BA"
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,
RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM autolearn=no version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 12:53:41 +0000
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP30 and BIP34 interaction (was Re: [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: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 12:22:09 -0000
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156)
--HQVQNhxjAKHdbObmF0J7vTivF7XK4A9BA
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On 11/17/2016 03:38 AM, Alex Morcos wrote:
> I think this conversation has gone off the rails and is no longer reall=
y
> appropriate for the list.
If this discussion is not appropriate for the Bitcoin Protocol
Discussion list then the list is pointless.
> But just to be clear to any readers. Bitcoin Core absolutely does rely=
> on the impossibility of a hash collision for maintaining consensus.=20
> This happens in multiple places in the code but in particular we don't
> check BIP30 any more since the only way it could get violated is by a
> hash collision.
So the protocol change that I suggested to Peter an hour or so ago was
actually implemented, a year ago, by you:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/06d81ad516f1d136da9f03ca2ae8232=
11c0f6988
Given that hash collisions are unquestionably possible, this is a clear
break with BIP30 (irrespective of BIP34) and constitutes a hard fork. Is
there going to be a retroactive BIP for this one at some point as well?
I'm aware that the block hash check is performed against the full chain,
as opposed to the candidate block fork height, and as a result is
insufficient to guard against a block hash collision causing a chain
split (though until now I assumed this was a bug).
Would you care to share the other consensus critical reliances on the
impossibility of hash collision that you are implying?
e
--HQVQNhxjAKHdbObmF0J7vTivF7XK4A9BA
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJYLaDxAAoJEDzYwH8LXOFOEScH/ii9KYDI5EyYV2U1mx0dDeGI
G9gvaLEq1MtaZCEaeb5USYwL05LO/kKcAg5t3xBvkpeDfoyIDKBuHkq3CKk5RlJp
MEMK651aFG4QczRktOmCSEo6wYaZ0Y66U27tHoAfEfbcZsWpPPx5ado7dKHUTYz3
+rUueWE1z7qjRH52k73JQ+PBrhFCMDqH9tpx1wLK7euMy1GQxnCja7JrVXv/H1D5
r72HZsXJgvZ7R2ZfpmZ5iGJuoLhQS8GP5LEKKozD7hxttslcb+zAUAjgBCPxTYQt
CV/5wVYxVUptUUXFqAYhlPKjbiiPAkkBcDP9opY+LfuWOZ7PKlsj+PSCtfSsKJ8=
=KxwF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--HQVQNhxjAKHdbObmF0J7vTivF7XK4A9BA--
|
