Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DEAD41BB for ; Fri, 4 Dec 2015 17:34:29 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-lf0-f44.google.com (mail-lf0-f44.google.com [209.85.215.44]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 002F2154 for ; Fri, 4 Dec 2015 17:34:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: by lfdl133 with SMTP id l133so116181964lfd.2 for ; Fri, 04 Dec 2015 09:34:27 -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=Zg0ClUrva1H2vVfkxGGi5TQQRzNR7In9WEs9ln021zY=; b=xMWNneRf3wr973lULtaCi3qscUdpa0qt8sNaopDZiWN0slp3cpYvO1Ysmut9d8VKjL 4uNA1J/yNjDg2WVyURYT/3hS6iHr+rxnY6zd1dzXvXA5tj2vT1/001fyrl6xgiSmpAyR a7415+VZaVw6Ln7+qv4HXt2VNeebR9U7/PIOe8c+A3myg61qrmnt11GCGIXwktyT94RX XA+KVn5frw4fEVxcU5BZsEhkUbdWo5+R0kcbALpLW8oAU0FDAATiBCjfuwsiVytpVY/o JSarriGhkLRTL6/q3emuBhc4ULC7Ov3/bsd2XBEHhZtaHbWdmm7Hla2c+BlVU7baT1r6 cQFg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.25.138.68 with SMTP id m65mr8631611lfd.69.1449250467092; Fri, 04 Dec 2015 09:34:27 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.25.22.95 with HTTP; Fri, 4 Dec 2015 09:34:27 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 12:34:27 -0500 Message-ID: From: Gavin Andresen To: Gregory Maxwell Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113fb6ac483172052615eb78 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 Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Blockchain verification flag (BIP draft) X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Dec 2015 17:34:30 -0000 --001a113fb6ac483172052615eb78 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Overall, good idea. Is there a write-up somewhere describing in detail the 'accidental selfish mining' problem that this mitigates? I think a link in the BIP to a fuller description of the problem and how validation-skipping makes it go away would be helpful. RE: which bit to use: the draft versionbits BIP and BIP101 use bit 30; to avoid confusion, I think it would be better to use bit 0. I agree with Jannes Faber, behavior with respect to SPV clients should be to only tell them about fully validated headers. And I also agree that immediately relaying full-proof-of-work blocks before validation (with an indication that they haven't been fully validated) is a good idea, but that discussion didn't reach consensus when I brought it up two years ago ( https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/3580). -- -- Gavin Andresen --001a113fb6ac483172052615eb78 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Overall, good idea.

Is there a write-up= somewhere describing in detail the 'accidental selfish mining' pro= blem that this mitigates? I think a link in the BIP to a fuller description= of the problem and how validation-skipping makes it go away would be helpf= ul.

RE: which bit to use: =C2=A0the draft versionb= its BIP and BIP101 use bit 30; to avoid confusion, I think it would be bett= er to use bit 0.

I agree with Jannes Faber, behavi= or with respect to SPV clients should be to only tell them about fully vali= dated headers. And I also agree that immediately relaying full-proof-of-wor= k blocks before validation (with an indication that they haven't been f= ully validated) is a good idea, but that discussion didn't reach consen= sus when I brought it up two years ago (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/3580).


--
--
Gavin Andresen
--001a113fb6ac483172052615eb78--