Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
From: Eric Voskuil <eric@voskuil.org>
In-Reply-To: <CADJgMzunxU2-7Z_ZPafNY4BPRu0x9oeh6v2dg0nUYqxJbXeGYA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 14:42:05 -0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <33BFC318-0BB4-48DB-B5DC-08247FAC6E5A@voskuil.org>
References: <CAFp6fsGmynRXLCqKAA+iBXObGOZ2h3DVW8k5L9kSfbPmL1Y-QQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CEDAD65E-512A-43CA-9BD6-56F7D9E6897C@voskuil.org>
	<CADJgMzunxU2-7Z_ZPafNY4BPRu0x9oeh6v2dg0nUYqxJbXeGYA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Btc Drak <btcdrak@gmail.com>
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] [BIP Proposal] Buried Deployments
Precedence: list

Actually this does nothing to provide justification for this consensus rule c=
hange. It is just an attempt to deflect criticism from the fact that it is s=
uch a change.

e

> On Nov 15, 2016, at 9:45 AM, Btc Drak <btcdrak@gmail.com> wrote:
>=20
> I think this is already covered in the BIP text:-
>=20
> "As of November 2016, the most recent of these changes (BIP 65,
> enforced since December 2015) has nearly 50,000 blocks built on top of
> it. The occurrence of such a reorg that would cause the activating
> block to be disconnected would raise fundamental concerns about the
> security assumptions of Bitcoin, a far bigger issue than any
> non-backwards compatible change.
>=20
> So while this proposal could theoretically result in a consensus
> split, it is extremely unlikely, and in particular any such
> circumstances would be sufficiently damaging to the Bitcoin network to
> dwarf any concerns about the effects of this proposed change."
>=20
>=20
> On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 6:47 PM, Eric Voskuil via bitcoin-dev
> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>> NACK
>>=20
>> Horrible precedent (hardcoding rule changes based on the assumption that
>> large forks indicate a catastrophic failure), extremely poor process
>> (already shipped, now the discussion), and not even a material performanc=
e
>> optimization (the checks are avoidable once activated until a sufficientl=
y
>> deep reorg deactivates them).
>>=20
>> e
>>=20
>> On Nov 14, 2016, at 10:17 AM, Suhas Daftuar via bitcoin-dev
>> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>=20
>> Hi,
>>=20
>> Recently Bitcoin Core merged a simplification to the consensus rules
>> surrounding deployment of BIPs 34, 66, and 65
>> (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8391), and though the change is a=

>> minor one, I thought it was worth documenting the rationale in a BIP for
>> posterity.
>>=20
>> Here's the abstract:
>>=20
>> Prior soft forks (BIP 34, BIP 65, and BIP 66) were activated via miner
>> signaling in block version numbers. Now that the chain has long since pas=
sed
>> the blocks at which those consensus rules have triggered, we can (as a
>> simplification and optimization) replace the trigger mechanism by caching=

>> the block heights at which those consensus rules became enforced.
>>=20
>> The full draft can be found here:
>>=20
>> https://github.com/sdaftuar/bips/blob/buried-deployments/bip-buried-deplo=
yments.mediawiki
>>=20
>> _______________________________________________
>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>=20
>>=20
>> _______________________________________________
>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>=20