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
|
Return-Path: <kanzure@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 72E821068
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 4 Feb 2016 18:00:51 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-ob0-f170.google.com (mail-ob0-f170.google.com
[209.85.214.170])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 50714144
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 4 Feb 2016 18:00:50 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-ob0-f170.google.com with SMTP id wb13so73036450obb.1
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 04 Feb 2016 10:00:50 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
:cc:content-type;
bh=zgfuXqGG6aIM8TTsWSw1PKOLDxVvlnz5kmn6rJbcvWk=;
b=lnq4oHngh8b/2JaX7p/D4LIxEa3rC7oCDSgfUYD81HYw7VoJ6PGACGpb0EDN2xzVnG
85jG+Xrdv57iKvbJSAqIlJ2buSUPdydex8BKzxJm5bQLAIwbTIDGVtyt86uXkICgcrSC
IBALAh1nwDGHAB8tkB4AnMuDMI4bykoAQ4QlP0WJ7g02HJfv4dFS80TwxtyAEyw3mtv8
to12kTQFFyXIY+vFjiXwjdzocDhxxOcgOXgF4Oph5SOiFIKGcCcJbrxkYpAU5nq1eZJc
xvQoDgVuCUt0EWDz9K0k3DMQfHuqityfMFQJnXX68cC/Au6Utpmszhyl7rsmbWXex0uK
4Kpw==
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=zgfuXqGG6aIM8TTsWSw1PKOLDxVvlnz5kmn6rJbcvWk=;
b=TLVX3M2WlXgNHDChh3F+ECFaxHWd4PlxYVR5eIzYVF7PT26jLj81Y4Jex+PJLbCuh1
9AQyYPIvswX9PkNFO2CFpuCVl810YN2g3DepbGNXhxs0bxWISf2w2XYL0WezlpNqgZs7
x0RcyScrxN4C4PF0l9vTwzyk+eEKxuEZ51GPDVodP4Ko1yRtA4GLO3fFGILHbtuM/mw5
zZFD9PoyaG/ZtK2kAE+PXK7HpsI5V6os8ZLo5jTtepkwLdHvSStsZaBhCHer34JrSsAZ
JWksnCzrwRlidgG2xluWwwIW4qnn0q9KN5F/bEFxHrLIY9i9G4CP7bI4qaEEL+mTs2BI
qUHQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YOTgIUZU3EaNEC797fqwcrgZxBTeZtmseOciApUk0S5xQLpsdiRBDgy/LYqWJXzlTScL1H0goIp+SPCB5g==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.182.73.225 with SMTP id o1mr8895354obv.80.1454608849603;
Thu, 04 Feb 2016 10:00:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.157.17.117 with HTTP; Thu, 4 Feb 2016 10:00:49 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <a4a8c42d8e6528dd7c0ae100958dd988@xbt.hk>
References: <f225318eddd0aadc71861f988f2f4674@xbt.hk>
<CABsx9T2VoWm04i_vQv7u0vXM6hdMBM29bnMSuv8RmMFMGxOdpg@mail.gmail.com>
<a4a8c42d8e6528dd7c0ae100958dd988@xbt.hk>
Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2016 12:00:49 -0600
Message-ID: <CABaSBawLVciovTLrdd_yVwOgAE-i5cem6+pC7-mnuL3TsQVn=Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Bryan Bishop <kanzure@gmail.com>
To: jl2012 <jl2012@xbt.hk>, Bryan Bishop <kanzure@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0160b7c6c4977f052af5833f
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,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
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 04 Feb 2016 18:01:35 +0000
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Hardfork bit BIP
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: Thu, 04 Feb 2016 18:00:51 -0000
--089e0160b7c6c4977f052af5833f
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 11:56 AM, jl2012 via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> past the triggering block. A block-chain re-org of two thousand or
>> more blocks on the main Bitcoin chain is unthinkable-- the economic
>> chaos would be massive, and the reaction to such a drastic (and
>> extremely unlikely) event would certainly be a hastily imposed
>> checkpoint to get everybody back onto the chain that everybody was
>> using for economic transactions.
>>
>
> No, the "triggering block" you mentioned is NOT where the hardfork starts.
> Using BIP101 as an example, the hardfork starts when the first >1MB is
> mined. For people who failed to upgrade, the "grace period" is always zero,
> which is the moment they realize a hardfork.
>
Are there any plans written down anywhere about the "hastily imposed
checkpoint" scenario? As far as I know, we would have to check-point on
both blockchains because of the way that hard-forks work (creating two
separate chains and/or networks). Nothing about this should be an
"emergency", we have all the time in the world to prepare a safe and
responsible way to upgrade the network without unilaterally
declaring obsolescence.
- Bryan
http://heybryan.org/
1 512 203 0507
--089e0160b7c6c4977f052af5833f
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On T=
hu, Feb 4, 2016 at 11:56 AM, jl2012 via bitcoin-dev <span dir=3D"ltr"><<=
a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">b=
itcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote c=
lass=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1p=
x;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1=
ex"><span class=3D""><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px =
0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);bord=
er-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">past the triggering block. A block-ch=
ain re-org of two thousand or<br>
more blocks on the main Bitcoin chain is unthinkable-- the economic<br>
chaos would be massive, and the reaction to such a drastic (and<br>
extremely unlikely) event would certainly be a hastily imposed<br>
checkpoint to get everybody back onto the chain that everybody was<br>
using for economic transactions.<br>
</blockquote>
<br></span>
No, the "triggering block" you mentioned is NOT where the hardfor=
k starts. Using BIP101 as an example, the hardfork starts when the first &g=
t;1MB is mined. For people who failed to upgrade, the "grace period&qu=
ot; is always zero, which is the moment they realize a hardfork.<span class=
=3D""><br></span></blockquote></div><br>Are there any plans written down an=
ywhere about the "hastily imposed checkpoint" scenario? As far as=
I know, we would have to check-point on both blockchains because of the wa=
y that hard-forks work (creating two separate chains and/or networks). Noth=
ing about this should be an "emergency", we have all the time in =
the world to prepare a safe and responsible way to upgrade the network with=
out unilaterally declaring=C2=A0obsolescence.<br><div><br></div><div class=
=3D"gmail_signature">- Bryan<br><a href=3D"http://heybryan.org/" target=3D"=
_blank">http://heybryan.org/</a><br>1 512 203 0507</div>
</div></div>
--089e0160b7c6c4977f052af5833f--
|
