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
|
Return-Path: <aj@erisian.com.au>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 363381B7F
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 10 Oct 2015 07:23:35 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from azure.erisian.com.au (cerulean.erisian.com.au [106.187.51.212])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1A0D0DF
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 10 Oct 2015 07:23:34 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from aj@azure.erisian.com.au (helo=navy.erisian.com.au)
by azure.erisian.com.au with esmtpsa (Exim 4.84 #2 (Debian))
id 1ZkoV8-0005Hk-6v for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 10 Oct 2015 17:23:31 +1000
Received: by navy.erisian.com.au (sSMTP sendmail emulation);
Sat, 10 Oct 2015 17:23:26 +1000
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 2015 17:23:26 +1000
From: Anthony Towns <aj@erisian.com.au>
To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Message-ID: <20151010072326.GA24099@navy>
References: <20150927185031.GA20599@savin.petertodd.org>
<CA+w+GKRCVr-9TVk66utp7xLRgTxNpxYoj3XQE-6y_N8JS6eO6Q@mail.gmail.com>
<CAAS2fgSEDGBd67m7i8zCgNRqtmQrZyZMj7a5TsYo41Dh=tdhHQ@mail.gmail.com>
<20151007150014.GA21849@navy>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20151007150014.GA21849@navy>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Score-int: -18
X-Spam-Bar: -
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD,
UNPARSEABLE_RELAY 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] Let's deploy BIP65 CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY!
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Development 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: Sat, 10 Oct 2015 07:23:35 -0000
On Thu, Oct 08, 2015 at 01:00:14AM +1000, Anthony Towns via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> *But* a soft fork that only forbids transactions that would previously
> not have been mined anyway should be the best of both worlds, [...]
> * more restrictive than consensus, but less restrictive than policy
> (safe soft fork)
> Hmm, in particular, following this line of thinking it's not clear to
> me that BIP68 is actually less restrictive than current policy?
As was discussed on the weekly meeting [0], turns out it *is* less
restrictive than current policy. IsStandardTx currently returns a failure
if the tx version is greater than 1, and per BIP68, nSequence will only
be inforced with tx version of 2 or greater.
So afaics, BIP 65 (OP_CLTV), BIP 68 (nSequence) and BIP 112 (OP_CSV)
are all "safe soft forks", and if activated won't cause SPV nodes to
see a significant uptick in reorgs, double-spends etc. (They'll still
be vulnerable to people deliberately spending hashpower to mine invalid
blocks, but that's a problem at any point, independent of whether a
soft-fork is underway)
[0] http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-dev/2015/bitcoin-dev.2015-10-08-18.59.log.html#l-312
Cheers,
aj
|
