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
|
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 DF8E8207D
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 30 Sep 2015 20:37:10 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-wi0-f174.google.com (mail-wi0-f174.google.com
[209.85.212.174])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5D938100
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 30 Sep 2015 20:37:10 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by wicfx3 with SMTP id fx3so489681wic.0
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 30 Sep 2015 13:37:09 -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=+k9vLJitMpN2HzTdeL1wVQZPbXF4Z5dfDpQOeTVHkCc=;
b=VReYjFl87iZWvwoz/CmUy4f9Pfe5v5457zs7KS9y9A7A+gd9S0lULn/M0QDI06O/+d
zUK0a1xNeylnDGuFRYsgbRuTqqoMOMBaKA2Hsziq3a3Fjv3pHvPA4FYOKZkEWg5Mk/xl
Mhtixp8hfdBdIGFemtd3g5XA057INmgT7jB9QyLZiDY8FaoBuuVoPMTLcqUvytAmTL9t
MmVlKx4uZXzjRM8tepoi7GMC4137Sn8kfMPivfjZPopuyJv7t2DRs8FkBG1ZODdqYFCE
PPrD27hX+XaGXjYXcz8V3nhC7mK4TEotki52GxOAHInW0qNepUdHQuDOWhfWF85JMgrK
blDw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmPkm8hcgxppz0mILodEM+30/0fde1X2KvCaz2jq50kMvrMGKNQrjlfjODVUGm9Ea3CqWnw
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.102.195 with SMTP id fq3mr7152414wib.7.1443645429053;
Wed, 30 Sep 2015 13:37:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.194.114.199 with HTTP; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 13:37:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.194.114.199 with HTTP; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 13:37:08 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CA+w+GKS01sVXqNY6a39EjqL8NVO6k1Vq6sd0VZjeqF_tsx7OAA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20150927185031.GA20599@savin.petertodd.org>
<CA+w+GKRCVr-9TVk66utp7xLRgTxNpxYoj3XQE-6y_N8JS6eO6Q@mail.gmail.com>
<CAAS2fgSEDGBd67m7i8zCgNRqtmQrZyZMj7a5TsYo41Dh=tdhHQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CA+w+GKRKGS=KZrLtiW8Zbn4EQH_TELfQR+TfrADCMXLR22Q+tw@mail.gmail.com>
<CADm_WcbJoH27H9ckr5sfmE0gh7YbSjKr1uLse0s3b4GTT+jEAA@mail.gmail.com>
<CA+w+GKS01sVXqNY6a39EjqL8NVO6k1Vq6sd0VZjeqF_tsx7OAA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 22:37:08 +0200
Message-ID: <CABm2gDpojk4Sb9eVVcFiaQng+mKs+3iWFu_Ep0h7VC1ip7US5Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
To: Mike Hearn <hearn@vinumeris.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d04447df9fb105b0520fce470
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,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
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.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: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 20:37:11 -0000
--f46d04447df9fb105b0520fce470
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On Sep 30, 2015 9:56 PM, "Mike Hearn via bitcoin-dev" <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> Jorge has said soft forks always lead to network convergence. No, they
don't. You get constant mini divergences until everyone has upgraded, as
opposed to a single divergence with a hard fork (until everyone has
upgraded). The quantity of invalid blocks mined, on the other hand, is
identical in both types.
Exactly, all those "mini divergences" eventually disappear (because we're
assuming the hashrate majority has upgraded and non-upgraded miners accept
upgraded blocks as valid), even if the hashrate minority never upgrades.
On the other hand, the "single divergence" in the hardfork keeps growing
forever (unless all miners evetually upgrade.
With softforks, we maintain eventual consistency, with hardforks we don't.
--f46d04447df9fb105b0520fce470
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<p dir=3D"ltr"><br>
On Sep 30, 2015 9:56 PM, "Mike Hearn via bitcoin-dev" <<a href=
=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfo=
undation.org</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> Jorge has said soft forks always lead to network convergence. No, they=
don't. You get constant mini divergences until everyone has upgraded, =
as opposed to a single divergence with a hard fork (until everyone has upgr=
aded). The quantity of invalid blocks mined, on the other hand, is identica=
l in both types.</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">Exactly, all those "mini divergences" eventually d=
isappear (because we're assuming the hashrate majority has upgraded and=
non-upgraded miners accept upgraded blocks as valid), even if the hashrate=
minority never upgrades.<br>
On the other hand, the "single divergence" in the hardfork keeps =
growing forever (unless all miners evetually upgrade.<br>
With softforks, we maintain eventual consistency, with hardforks we don'=
;t.<br>
</p>
--f46d04447df9fb105b0520fce470--
|
