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
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
|
Return-Path: <eric@voskuil.org>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D0EDBE69
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 14 Feb 2018 23:57:11 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-it0-f44.google.com (mail-it0-f44.google.com
[209.85.214.44])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4889E7C
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 14 Feb 2018 23:57:11 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-it0-f44.google.com with SMTP id o13so17332201ito.2
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 14 Feb 2018 15:57:11 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=voskuil-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623;
h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version
:in-reply-to; bh=/LV8JmcneDKArUKqzg5VV7+ZuTUimE39/EawLy5WOyw=;
b=zfS5BrAXoyDwHiN5AkggODAPcucQaH/zXe9jOfFNeVJkVPchrhRXv/R0yL+tauhlhN
5xCvum5KN4z46BB9yHso25pa+q75/JrvENLv4v+D9ANbIQjmzViPUkeQFZ3gXX785ZVu
zIY8IseLOpl9WV3v1R9GWW5gI87FWPxNmwONoS3gGOvdwBGoECnad1EDEOb1yKPIgnv0
XbrxrcPFUpWxyYBDYwr0nVZw3CeUJn3Yf6cEt7QiZft4f802euqM4t4g1bU2bFD4XKkQ
+ML5G0blLdyHq5wbQ/3loDJDHwbI7dknABeemdiCuxERTqencqc7u0sfjvgj8y9OvWxW
cSmA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date
:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to;
bh=/LV8JmcneDKArUKqzg5VV7+ZuTUimE39/EawLy5WOyw=;
b=qHQbJ9mNdydTCFhSVOcdOyATVPgDIL6OsjlvazzYfHbC1qXdX4Gn7sz6PGekkUqJg8
PFy1kvoLdOrznCCHFs9RTTZIMgOirHQEGe2utqc/T9QWi24Rq4p9tgYGTv9Ofq22jwag
9l17dxpRKfMu1GaAlAfZEAQBJcyZV7wcTtsijzc9WWoPUEuptHJYd8wZZ66BHyygAvcP
I5q+HnXKmnQekCwxXOriY7R7mZWTWyRnq31Rkfi5qV1dztbsvTkVxJMcEtcu7G7N7iEY
U1mhlhQupvvDYtzZu3wXNzBf6Z/rAz98m921WBs6d+wcLHXHus/pyL3mp8yZe/tBu81T
Z2tQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APf1xPDGFj89pbxo+DayY0Qd7Ei0NMRaMOdk/UEVOtxXAyXdYzSkuWhP
zjZAvzTxbXZcVdT8smL33qhoSmhx
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x2279mKdyjpn8C/Hb5+fbKiF4d2qGjgpPB33KVLVkDVQASl3jqxOKwY8zmo3QW5+Yjd+8NECREw==
X-Received: by 10.36.230.133 with SMTP id e127mr961036ith.54.1518652630370;
Wed, 14 Feb 2018 15:57:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPv6:2601:600:a080:16bb:b8a0:700:98d6:2bf9?
([2601:600:a080:16bb:b8a0:700:98d6:2bf9])
by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id
k5sm16605629ioe.59.2018.02.14.15.57.08
(version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128);
Wed, 14 Feb 2018 15:57:09 -0800 (PST)
To: Marco Falke <falke.marco@gmail.com>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
References: <CAK51vgDaSMH96VmHxgLswVQTxGGjy4VU0VnT4CZ7H+WJrrTApw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Eric Voskuil <eric@voskuil.org>
Message-ID: <8fb2e424-268c-7433-5f6b-5fbab5c5cc5c@voskuil.org>
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2018 15:57:10 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/52.5.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAK51vgDaSMH96VmHxgLswVQTxGGjy4VU0VnT4CZ7H+WJrrTApw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
protocol="application/pgp-signature";
boundary="Xc6rLNMemO1QaWmsAgCV8mIZWGn37uRe4"
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 15 Feb 2018 00:03:49 +0000
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Amend the BIP 123 process to include buried
deployments
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Wed, 14 Feb 2018 23:57:11 -0000
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156)
--Xc6rLNMemO1QaWmsAgCV8mIZWGn37uRe4
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="ago9ro88l3u6tdENBEYhKhCTJzz0ISYBS";
protected-headers="v1"
From: Eric Voskuil <eric@voskuil.org>
To: Marco Falke <falke.marco@gmail.com>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Message-ID: <8fb2e424-268c-7433-5f6b-5fbab5c5cc5c@voskuil.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Amend the BIP 123 process to include buried
deployments
References: <CAK51vgDaSMH96VmHxgLswVQTxGGjy4VU0VnT4CZ7H+WJrrTApw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAK51vgDaSMH96VmHxgLswVQTxGGjy4VU0VnT4CZ7H+WJrrTApw@mail.gmail.com>
--ago9ro88l3u6tdENBEYhKhCTJzz0ISYBS
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On 02/14/2018 02:01 PM, Marco Falke via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> I define a buried deployment as a consensus rule change that affects
> validity of blocks that are buried by a sufficiently large number of
> blocks in the current valid most-work chain,
Sufficient for what, specifically?
> but the current block (and all its parents) remain valid.
Remain valid in the case where the depth assumption is "sufficient" to
ensure that a chain split is not possible?
If this was true (which it is not), it would imply that there is no
reason to validate any block deeper than the most recent 25,000.
Presumably this means that people may continuously rely on some
authority (like Bitcoin Core?) to determine the checkpoint for tip-25,000=
=2E
> BIP 123 suggests that BIPs in the consensus layer should be assigned a
> label "soft fork" or "hard fork". However, I think the differentiation
> into soft fork or hard fork should not be made for BIPs that document
> buried deployments. In contrast to soft forks and hard forks, buried
> deployments do not require community and miner coordination for a safe
> deployment.
They can only avoid this requirement based on the assumption that the
hard fork cannot result in a chain split. This is not the case.
> For a chain fork to happen due to a buried deployment, a massive chain
> reorganization must be produced off of a block in the very past.
In other words a "buried deployment" is a hard fork that is not likely
to cause a chain split. This is a subjective subcategory of hard fork,
not an independent category - unless maybe you can show that there is
the 25,000 blocks number is an objective threshold.
> In the extremely unlikely event of such a large chain reorganization,
> Bitcoin's general security assumptions would be violated regardless of
> the presence of a buried deployment.
This is untrue. The "security assumptions" of Bitcoin do not preclude
deep reorganizations.
e
--ago9ro88l3u6tdENBEYhKhCTJzz0ISYBS--
--Xc6rLNMemO1QaWmsAgCV8mIZWGn37uRe4
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJahMzXAAoJEDzYwH8LXOFO/PwH/0OLE9v2KthiYvSEBIwXJd3N
jD1ZFrJqBxNf4ykDkKIml6b5cF+VFhxEeA3yhFqEhaGb5f2Z3k5ccNLAls2XqMbs
oGyTaq7QFdjKrAWfa1/RUhAHq30QMxO1tnwkx6O3zyMtNraNwXwyFj3QN7HJdIA8
p+d+G6VoPCAYfS8lBj6fm3h0L6Vaaj6oSNXo+nU1WNvRUr8Sqfk6LRv2MV0/Y5E6
/mEQh78tX9b4SCuX8mBSe7AZZ2NII6cbhz4Dx2zxCge6sPjpa+uJAnKYuUdBR0Ld
urg6y39KnBCWBRhBHHpnBbop4ttzm0SoDpuchL9nSasmxhzX0vjLxRmT0eJl9KU=
=dALt
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--Xc6rLNMemO1QaWmsAgCV8mIZWGn37uRe4--
|
