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
|
Return-Path: <rusty@ozlabs.org>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 40C018FC
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 6 Dec 2015 02:32:51 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from ozlabs.org (ozlabs.org [103.22.144.67])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 80C01143
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 6 Dec 2015 02:32:50 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by ozlabs.org (Postfix, from userid 1011)
id 1D4EA140323; Sun, 6 Dec 2015 13:32:47 +1100 (AEDT)
From: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
To: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>, Gregory Maxwell <greg@xiph.org>
In-Reply-To: <CABsx9T1vBRMYm6rLuqzvOxD0eABE4saF44JzZjMF3iUU==Nz0Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAS2fgRwfQNYxCmDPAnVudyAti9v8PPXQjxe9M13pmrFxKcSCQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CABsx9T1vBRMYm6rLuqzvOxD0eABE4saF44JzZjMF3iUU==Nz0Q@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Notmuch/0.20.2 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/24.5.1
(x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
Date: Sat, 05 Dec 2015 09:13:16 +1030
Message-ID: <871tb16diz.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DATE_IN_PAST_24_48,
RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Blockchain verification flag (BIP draft)
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: Sun, 06 Dec 2015 02:32:51 -0000
Gavin Andresen via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
writes:
> Overall, good idea.
>
> Is there a write-up somewhere describing in detail the 'accidental selfish
> mining' problem that this mitigates? I think a link in the BIP to a fuller
> description of the problem and how validation-skipping makes it go away
> would be helpful.
>
> RE: which bit to use: the draft versionbits BIP and BIP101 use bit 30; to
> avoid confusion, I think it would be better to use bit 0.
Yes, BIP9 need to be adjusted (setting bit 30 means BIP9 counts it as a
vote against all softforks). BIP101 uses bits 0,1,2 AFAICT, so perhaps
start from the other end and use bit 29? We can bikeshed that later
though...
> I agree with Jannes Faber, behavior with respect to SPV clients should be
> to only tell them about fully validated headers.
A delicate balance. If we penalize these blocks too much, it's
disincentive to set the bit. Fortunately it's easy for SPV clients to
decide for themselves, I think?
Cheers,
Rusty.
|
