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
|
Return-Path: <kanzure@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 218AC481
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 26 Mar 2017 20:44:15 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-ot0-f171.google.com (mail-ot0-f171.google.com
[74.125.82.171])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A3CFB136
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 26 Mar 2017 20:44:14 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-ot0-f171.google.com with SMTP id t8so14855634otf.3
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 26 Mar 2017 13:44:14 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025;
h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to
:cc; bh=GyLKpg0aM+mOXhT9tFGEiolrtjI9ZZyaJ4cud3tkOSw=;
b=VqQUKFHVHTkGqFi1C7CbdhKAoMcZ28lmHl+GoXD9rEn3kFKa7XcdKyDlLsn5udHtrb
xoA1bTxlnBe5Z2unSR8TNL/ijd7nBmUtyW0iya38dbzYCqhUiN3kzITwcvemSVTss2oJ
spbOqqIv6XN4itPH+OWPohJwOo+AKzSDXTKoDFYQ9qcD0EsJbnpsIMSumJ3wASPGPu6q
Np2wMmLRO9TiYhumhBcQtAsu1MKer8iGlN+r9vLAM9p1VCjWyIbkmO62x6vb91xzIEe5
9aZFGHbjFdFPps4cxaRep1gAA0BFDSS7eVf07JGf3UvZ57QZA+OtWZi9aLlZyuESO/Tu
+zqQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date
:message-id:subject:to:cc;
bh=GyLKpg0aM+mOXhT9tFGEiolrtjI9ZZyaJ4cud3tkOSw=;
b=Qv0n4imiTwzpwKpdV1R/oOOhNcxzU7n8RuSDk9MsQkFkIpfB+r4WEgknr5SkpINGqU
tMEAsrFDWNcfmfXMT8ewBS0J7RbcFYbDAtRbwoMTe95Y7NQ825bW5rqsowrrK+eUCtOz
HODZdxoF7MOoeK0Vq/fgoqJ4CuTgofnHJ3NbtWsNZsFDtxTYcUbDRh9Q92rp8wejrn/a
1khWpu75oo0xJ/jF2FYO1cBKIaD+ewBk+vZRvRi4r97eNVriLBrn3RIlGwQYJBMVLcj7
DDifQubjiR5z8yYB/gY9iZzYDPL538/zVtXqDOn9tJUJS930ueUE0Dg40Bbeo61i6f7S
m8MA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H1GSefwgFNEC68rvQyK9xEWicyN08/dtX4XXJcD6YrRYPBeaK3sDmIhroyExvk04iPw4V4KQldaJ1sesQ==
X-Received: by 10.157.45.163 with SMTP id g32mr10671656otb.274.1490561054010;
Sun, 26 Mar 2017 13:44:14 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.157.36.111 with HTTP; Sun, 26 Mar 2017 13:44:12 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CALd2G5dCLHDxV6Daq6q=AMuW8ytPGMKjAdXHxZzsUccJbKJKSg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5b9ba6c4-6d8f-9c0b-2420-2be6c30f87b5@cannon-ciota.info>
<35ba77db-f95a-4517-c960-8ad42a633ba0@gmail.com>
<f4849cef-3c40-31a4-e323-6a731bb52bc2@cannon-ciota.info>
<9C2A6867-470D-4336-8439-17F4E0CA4B17@gmx.com>
<CAPWm=eV2aLJKMM_5T-jaXCm1umRFxy+vfirBqCGAvUKHtOphQg@mail.gmail.com>
<9EB5050D-E54E-4E8B-84C6-95CC1FAC4081@gmx.com>
<CABaSBayb-FAt0XOX9u+T3-Z2gJQAV-Y7xZS_k6YG74VhPqejQA@mail.gmail.com>
<CALd2G5dCLHDxV6Daq6q=AMuW8ytPGMKjAdXHxZzsUccJbKJKSg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Bryan Bishop <kanzure@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2017 15:44:12 -0500
Message-ID: <CABaSBaxopw2yUW6p7YKCWiYgARiG4CB7WpxMQ5eqZJzNHJfXfA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Trevin Hofmann <trevinhofmann@gmail.com>, Bryan Bishop <kanzure@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c04fb4a23f58f054ba84a95
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, HTML_MESSAGE,
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
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Defending against empty or near empty blocks from
malicious miner takeover?
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: Sun, 26 Mar 2017 20:44:15 -0000
--94eb2c04fb4a23f58f054ba84a95
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On Sun, Mar 26, 2017 at 3:37 PM, Trevin Hofmann <trevinhofmann@gmail.com>
wrote:
> He stated that "any invalid blocks they produce" will be orphaned. This is
> not false. If non-upgraded miners do not produce blocks that are invalid
> per the new rules, their blocks will not be orphaned. This is consistent
> with Peter's comment.
It's the other part of the statement- the "wakeup call to upgrade" from
producing invalid blocks? They aren't producing invalid blocks.
Additionally, if they want to be even more sure about this, they can run
the so-called "border nodes". No wakeup calls needed.... the point of a
soft-fork is to reduce incompatibility.
- Bryan
http://heybryan.org/
1 512 203 0507
--94eb2c04fb4a23f58f054ba84a95
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">On S=
un, Mar 26, 2017 at 3:37 PM, Trevin Hofmann <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=
=3D"mailto:trevinhofmann@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">trevinhofmann@gmail.c=
om</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"marg=
in:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">He stated that &=
quot;any invalid blocks they produce" will be orphaned. This is not fa=
lse. If non-upgraded miners do not produce blocks that are invalid per the =
new rules, their blocks will not be orphaned. This is consistent with Peter=
's comment.</blockquote></div><br>It's the other part of the statem=
ent- the "wakeup call to upgrade" from producing invalid blocks? =
They aren't producing invalid blocks. Additionally, if they want to be =
even more sure about this, they can run the so-called "border nodes&qu=
ot;. No wakeup calls needed.... the point of a soft-fork is to reduce incom=
patibility.<br><div><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_signature" data-smartmail=
=3D"gmail_signature">- Bryan<br><a href=3D"http://heybryan.org/" target=3D"=
_blank">http://heybryan.org/</a><br>1 512 203 0507</div>
</div></div>
--94eb2c04fb4a23f58f054ba84a95--
|
