To: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>,
	Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
References: <CAFp6fsGmynRXLCqKAA+iBXObGOZ2h3DVW8k5L9kSfbPmL1Y-QQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CEDAD65E-512A-43CA-9BD6-56F7D9E6897C@voskuil.org>
	<CADJgMzunxU2-7Z_ZPafNY4BPRu0x9oeh6v2dg0nUYqxJbXeGYA@mail.gmail.com>
	<33BFC318-0BB4-48DB-B5DC-08247FAC6E5A@voskuil.org>
	<CADL_X_dJ8YuDevKR4xA+PTy9D089dAeZ1F3ZwSYG6MrMvkLweg@mail.gmail.com>
	<A98BB7F2-7AE2-4D84-9F38-7E7E9D5D3210@voskuil.org>
	<CAPg+sBiGwz23mm5fCKUrg7GpWwuJ=3Nf2DcN89KxG=g_Wz4vBw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Eric Voskuil <eric@voskuil.org>
Message-ID: <0d66bf24-2ded-cd98-ec55-945e01b436d0@voskuil.org>
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2016 18:16:23 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101
	Thunderbird/45.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAPg+sBiGwz23mm5fCKUrg7GpWwuJ=3Nf2DcN89KxG=g_Wz4vBw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature";
	boundary="6wQsoxBDP47ItSVAlIJG3GKs5VaJiPjL9"
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] [BIP Proposal] Buried Deployments
Precedence: list

This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156)
--6wQsoxBDP47ItSVAlIJG3GKs5VaJiPjL9
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On 11/16/2016 05:50 PM, Pieter Wuille wrote:

> If you were trying to point out that buried softforks are similar to
> checkpoints in this regard, I agree.

Yes, that was my point.

> So are checkpoints good now?
> I believe we should get rid of checkpoints because they seem to be
misunderstood as a security feature rather than as an optimization.

Or maybe because they place control of the "true chain" in the hands of
those selecting the checkpoints? It's not a great leap for the parties
distributing the checkpoints to become the central authority.

I recommend users of our node validate the full chain without
checkpoints and from that chain select their own checkpoints and place
them into config. From that point forward they can apply the
optimization. Checkpoints should never be hardcoded into the source.

> I don't think buried softforks have that problem.

I find "buried softfork" a curious name as you are using it. You seem to
be implying that this type of change is itself a softfork as opposed to
a hardfork that changes the activation of a softfork. It was my
understanding that the term referred to the 3 softforks that were being
"buried", or the proposal, but not the burial itself.

Nevertheless, this proposal shouldn't have "that problem" because it is
clearly neither a security feature nor an optimization. That is the
first issue that needs to be addressed.

e


--6wQsoxBDP47ItSVAlIJG3GKs5VaJiPjL9
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJYLRL3AAoJEDzYwH8LXOFOgnQH/jP2Mcqi+nSKsq8tCUaQprRc
CyvWQbUWvIss38bsr0DxUhlijuAGwMZ9vz9AECaWMuQMyBg137FgZqMfj/hUmirB
YRNBCtSJi0s5NHGrtEsyKf/IgrT6bTxpQw9p9joKREevcwoDaHnUqXyZWj8FqE0g
Q4scwGiQF+WQUBpZI+Xu8A0AHYcpc4+tBEyxL71FT2naQhSU5dnO7SFBXy2dxQeB
cRmov6ImaqMAUGaACyXtA2uhw6KDOLcUMClT9VEW9kzwrJwj0N1uBtpkqfDIXSgZ
Ay2XQ4Iv57qi2Ggf3GyhPkn0Zxe5a638OWlaa6MxiSU76Ub8JWkPJ+aPX6z6mYU=
=dyWX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--6wQsoxBDP47ItSVAlIJG3GKs5VaJiPjL9--