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
|
Return-Path: <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 892EEE80
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 28 Aug 2015 20:45:32 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-lb0-f170.google.com (mail-lb0-f170.google.com
[209.85.217.170])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A6E5D225
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 28 Aug 2015 20:45:31 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by lbcbn3 with SMTP id bn3so36532576lbc.2
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 28 Aug 2015 13:45:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date
:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type;
bh=NBnH1bkW22xFwGseslvi8kQfB3u+lMoPIU8WNEoLW7k=;
b=VXxbfSr5xvYf7g38L3QdKCg+6y3IIGjPzJBjILvbC9AFyuJtSWIp+mGXymrt09tuhx
BnkG0NG0smd6UUobDXzc8hed7Sz/YwbNP5XKo18kRAb/u6g4zE7skEhV7eDeZ2mzSwpw
qYlCcSkuk4ZtFw+2ghFf+wPILnI/RtKs21V+b8f2Vt8l52m8+qezKqhJfyYK0jyHqqv7
xjGxjtKnmaRE5l1CWL93qwvnSgFUiJqPCv7S7uQU8TGUBSU/3gO1uz2u0qXLH2PAgLHZ
At88o2NlQKOl7LhNQH6PMINYHPMEVW6HTQCTVSZTF9hqzPyi5DFLayZJ+1cEOIVRiTTx
CJOQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlnGJdNC1D2siPIbPXsyhoYA8ML7hP/yLQRv7fVZKUoy6egJ2f5eEGBjGqj8eDj38jHIWE1
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.152.219.3 with SMTP id pk3mr5693164lac.114.1440794729608;
Fri, 28 Aug 2015 13:45:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.25.15.22 with HTTP; Fri, 28 Aug 2015 13:45:29 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <2081350.pl7B3yspcG@crushinator>
References: <CAL7-sS2mrBqM7w5T8mRBFvVrCaHy1zT1YsgrHUxRBqdTFqczow@mail.gmail.com>
<CAL7-sS3CaHvZxUb-Q6HagHYufYnko_T4TBoFhd31rr5OxaiAEw@mail.gmail.com>
<CAL7-sS1aMqrUzMEbiQUWuxFtVHGv+-is7-BeAuje3rfQs_-JeQ@mail.gmail.com>
<2081350.pl7B3yspcG@crushinator>
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2015 22:45:29 +0200
Message-ID: <CABm2gDoXv6Tk0KrLJoSfqVTLti9niVaPu2mfE3+0dekL0P-Xug@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
To: Matt Whitlock <bip@mattwhitlock.name>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW
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] Uniquely identifying forked chains
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: Fri, 28 Aug 2015 20:45:32 -0000
On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 10:15 PM, Matt Whitlock via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Why would you use a hash of hashes? Wouldn't it be simpler and just as effective to use either:
>
> 1) the genesis block hash, or
If it's a new chain, we're talking about a "spinoffs"
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=563972.0
> 2) the block hash of the first block in a fork?
Yes, this seems like the best solution in the schism hardfork case.
What both sides of a schism hardfork would want is to avoid hurting
bystander users who can't tell the difference between the old and the
new currency/chain.
I should extend BIP99's section on schism hardforks.
Anybody else is welcomed to propose changes to the BIP draft, just PR
to this branch:
https://github.com/jtimon/bips/tree/bip-forks
> Every block hash in a chain implicitly subsumes the genesis block hash of that chain, so there's no need to incorporate the genesis block hash again.
>
>
> On Saturday, 29 August 2015, at 1:27 am, gladoscc via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>> There has been discussion of using the genesis block hash to identify
>> chains in BIP 21 (bitcoin:// URI scheme). However, this does not allow
>> identification between blockchain forks building upon the same genesis
>> block. While many see this as undesirable, I think it is inevitable that
>> this will eventually happen at some point, and think it is best to build
>> systems redundantly.
>>
>> I propose identifying blockchains for BIP 21 and any other relevant needs
>> through:
>>
>> 1) the genesis block hash for a new chain, or
>> 2) a hash of the genesis block hash, concatenated with block hash(es) of
>> fork point(s) for a fork chain
>>
>> This would support forks, forks of forks, forks of forks of forks, etc
>> while preserving a fixed length chain identifier.
>>
>> If a user wants to specify "whatever chain is the longest with PoW", they
>> would use (1). In times where multiple chains are coexisting and being
>> actively mined, a user can use (2) to specifically identify a chain.
>>
>> Thoughts?
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
|
