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
|
Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <luke@dashjr.org>) id 1UFs8H-0007J6-0h
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Wed, 13 Mar 2013 20:18:41 +0000
X-ACL-Warn:
Received: from zinan.dashjr.org ([173.242.112.54])
by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
id 1UFs8F-0007Z4-Q4 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Wed, 13 Mar 2013 20:18:40 +0000
Received: from ishibashi.localnet (unknown [173.170.142.26])
(Authenticated sender: luke-jr)
by zinan.dashjr.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D546327A2968;
Wed, 13 Mar 2013 20:18:33 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Luke-Jr" <luke@dashjr.org>
To: Mark Friedenbach <mark@monetize.io>
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 20:18:23 +0000
User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/3.7.3-gentoo; KDE/4.9.5; x86_64; ; )
References: <201303131256.30144.luke@dashjr.org>
<20130313175825.GA21242@vps7135.xlshosting.net>
<CACh7GpG_4uLUUiwJyZO0FtV2_UHMN-HnJsZZXWpC2jQvzb-jMQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CACh7GpG_4uLUUiwJyZO0FtV2_UHMN-HnJsZZXWpC2jQvzb-jMQ@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-8859-15"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <201303132018.24649.luke@dashjr.org>
X-Spam-Score: -2.4 (--)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
-2.4 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay
domain
X-Headers-End: 1UFs8F-0007Z4-Q4
Cc: "bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net"
<bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] 0.8.1 ideas
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: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 20:18:41 -0000
On Wednesday, March 13, 2013 6:27:13 PM Mark Friedenbach wrote:
> Luke-Jr is suggesting that we add-to/modify the bitcoin protocol rules
> which all verifying implementations must adhere to. I'm suggesting that we
> instead change the old codebase to do what we expected it to do all along
> (what 0.8 does and what every other verifying implementation does), and
> through miner collusion buy ourselves enough time for people to update
> their own installations.
Curiously enough, at least MtGox's custom implementation stuck with the
canonical blockchain despite 0.8's accidental rule change.
> I know there's people here who will jump in saying that the bitcoin
> protocol is the behavior of the Satoshi client, period. But which Satoshi
> client? 0.7 or 0.8? How do you resolve that without being arbitrary? And
> regardless, we are moving very quickly towards a multi-client future. This
> problem is very clearly a *bug* in the old codebase. So let's be forward
> thinking and do what we would do in any other situation: fix the bug,
> responsibly notify people and give them time to react, then move on. Let's
> not codify the bug in the protocol.
No, if any other client released diverged from the consensus of all
past/existing clients, we would do the same thing: call it a formerly unknown
protocol rule, that this new client has a bug implementing, and be done with
it.
The only reason this particular issue needs special treatment is because the
implications of the new rule mean that we're up against a hard limit in the
protocol today rather than 2 years from now.
Luke
|
