Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194]
	helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
	by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <mh.in.england@gmail.com>)
	id 1UFMAX-0002J1-Vk; Tue, 12 Mar 2013 10:10:54 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.214.178 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.214.178; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-ob0-f178.google.com; 
Received: from mail-ob0-f178.google.com ([209.85.214.178])
	by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76) id 1UFMAX-0006IB-1E; Tue, 12 Mar 2013 10:10:53 +0000
Received: by mail-ob0-f178.google.com with SMTP id wd20so4281707obb.37
	for <multiple recipients>; Tue, 12 Mar 2013 03:10:47 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.60.3.130 with SMTP id c2mr11366535oec.59.1363083047629; Tue,
	12 Mar 2013 03:10:47 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com
Received: by 10.76.86.169 with HTTP; Tue, 12 Mar 2013 03:10:47 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20130312095749.GB8130@savin>
References: <CAPg+sBip_4Jtxhq+rm-na2=RSJ_PuoZt+akGgJyo0b_Bwbr1Dw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPg+sBjm+e=A+edSRHXU7JSqyfSc4hou_SRdQHF48xhKQGA4zA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CANEZrP2V9uDQ-dmyaUBbsCuj5u3Mrh+jvU9RDpYkrKQV6+t0tQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<20130312095749.GB8130@savin>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 11:10:47 +0100
X-Google-Sender-Auth: _dRV533nmUj3wSGvfSChYN6qGic
Message-ID: <CANEZrP3KunGQSnmKxOBcuCNH=c1aHG_Yj=Ea_-HwkR5DP1eooA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
To: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Spam-Score: -1.5 (-)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
	See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
	-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
	sender-domain
	0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
	(mh.in.england[at]gmail.com)
	-0.0 SPF_PASS               SPF: sender matches SPF record
	0.1 DKIM_SIGNED            Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
	not necessarily valid
	-0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
X-Headers-End: 1UFMAX-0006IB-1E
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>,
	bitcoin-security@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Warning: many 0.7 nodes break on large
 number of tx/block; fork risk
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 10:10:54 -0000

However, most nodes are not running in such a loop today. Probably
almost no nodes are.

I suppose you could consider mass node death to be more benign than a
hard fork, but both are pretty damn serious and warrant immediate
action. Otherwise we're going to see the number of nodes drop sharply
over the coming days as unattended nodes die and then don't get
restarted.