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
|
Return-Path: <lf-lists@mattcorallo.com>
Received: from smtp3.osuosl.org (smtp3.osuosl.org [140.211.166.136])
by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADCC7C000D
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 13 Sep 2021 05:33:32 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8940860821
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 13 Sep 2021 05:33:32 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.401
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.401 tagged_above=-999 required=5
tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1,
DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001,
RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001]
autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: smtp3.osuosl.org (amavisd-new);
dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=mattcorallo.com
Received: from smtp3.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (smtp3.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id UdOfe9XNyKVg
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 13 Sep 2021 05:33:31 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0
Received: from mail.as397444.net (mail.as397444.net [69.59.18.99])
by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9FA76607AB
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 13 Sep 2021 05:33:31 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail.as397444.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4H7FWW01Plz12B0k;
Mon, 13 Sep 2021 05:33:26 +0000 (UTC)
X-DKIM-Note: Keys used to sign are likely public at https://as397444.net/dkim/
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mattcorallo.com;
s=1631509264; t=1631511207;
bh=hQ/ceGnwCG83YLtuvwBafj+kg8WZ+rWY6Y5Vm4P90ik=;
h=From:Subject:References:Cc:In-Reply-To:To:From;
b=Ma1afiRYf+kaVfHyC9KkIQbJY2xLq7N5Vbw5LCCXcqnXpQo3m0C/qhiwyx8QDnUnZ
/gcyKO4yNw/a+tAlSaQFtyum1v65eJS9+4mDL9hArnuzwBiIKLPA+idojtk8dhWUIK
0UPIP4VJfuNVCTQBE3YbBhHEluZEecOF8C/YHMCXX+nnIf3lvd4sF1abqiLzvLZRH6
9zdoTkcJ9KvKHCohTl54Fc5rnzdfFZ22406IzezghDrvbdd+mMidD+riaPZv3JDkrX
hUEH69pOoRBAfKtMhY/d+ZFO0UJHuCb8rPiaWJDcqyRTW3yjO7dbAZmdna4lc96jnJ
aLUaAkFyWGX+w==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: Matt Corallo <lf-lists@mattcorallo.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2021 22:33:24 -0700
Message-Id: <571244AD-B8F4-4F2A-BF4B-31EED3AB7713@mattcorallo.com>
References: <20210912075305.GA23673@erisian.com.au>
In-Reply-To: <20210912075305.GA23673@erisian.com.au>
To: Anthony Towns <aj@erisian.com.au>
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Reorgs on SigNet - Looking for feedback on
approach and parameters
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Mon, 13 Sep 2021 05:33:32 -0000
> On Sep 12, 2021, at 00:53, Anthony Towns <aj@erisian.com.au> wrote:
>=20
> =EF=BB=BFOn Thu, Sep 09, 2021 at 05:50:08PM -0700, Matt Corallo via bitcoi=
n-dev wrote:
>>> AJ proposed to allow SigNet users to opt-out of reorgs in case they
>>> explicitly want to remain unaffected. This can be done by setting a
>>> to-be-reorged version bit [...]
>> Why bother with a version bit? This seems substantially more complicated
>> than the original proposal that surfaced many times before signet launche=
d
>> to just have a different reorg signing key.
>=20
> Yeah, that was the original idea, but there ended up being two problems
> with that approach. The simplest is that the signet block signature
> encodes the signet challenge,
But if that was the originally proposal, why is the challenge committed to i=
n the block? :)
> So using the RECENT_CONSENSUS_CHANGE behaviour that avoids the
> discourage/disconnect logic seems the way to avoid that problem, and that
> means making it so that nodes that that opt-out of reorgs can distinguish
> valid-but-will-become-stale blocks from invalid blocks. Using a versionbit=
> seems like the easiest way of doing that.
Sure, you could set that for invalid block signatures as well though. It=E2=80=
=99s not really a material DoS protection one way or the other.
>>> The reorg-interval X very much depends on the user's needs. One could
>>> argue that there should be, for example, three reorgs per day, each 48
>>> blocks apart. Such a short reorg interval allows developers in all time
>>> zones to be awake during one or two reorgs per day. Developers don't
>>> need to wait for, for example, a week until they can test their reorgs
>>> next. However, too frequent reorgs could hinder other SigNet users.
>> I see zero reason whatsoever to not simply reorg ~every block, or as ofte=
n
>> as is practical. If users opt in to wanting to test with reorgs, they sho=
uld
>> be able to test with reorgs, not wait a day to test with reorgs.
>=20
> Blocks on signet get mined at a similar rate to mainnet, so you'll always
> have to wait a little bit (up to an hour) -- if you don't want to wait
> at all, that's what regtest (or perhaps a custom signet) is for.
Can you explain the motivation for this? =46rom where I sit, as far as I kno=
w, I should basically be a prime example of the target market for public sig=
net - someone developing bitcoin applications with regular requirements to t=
est those applications with other developers without jumping through hoops t=
o configure software the same across the globe and set up miners. With block=
s being slow and irregular, I=E2=80=99m basically not benefited at all by si=
gnet and will stick with testnet3/mainnet testing, which both suck.=
|
