Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E97CE71F for ; Sun, 26 Mar 2017 21:12:00 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-pg0-f42.google.com (mail-pg0-f42.google.com [74.125.83.42]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7A794212 for ; Sun, 26 Mar 2017 21:12:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pg0-f42.google.com with SMTP id 21so20313592pgg.1 for ; Sun, 26 Mar 2017 14:12:00 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=voskuil-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=vAJDOGj//VL9TT7xKvSXTwbb49lKhlQHS/Gj7DLd7zo=; b=p+CkfkwG4Jv4mQplUY8+J+25coAtKWql4wyWdXj29+DXQ+HUgJ0zUJ6/nPycm92EqH Oqyg0FPGvB59Ju7RILKN/d+GIZ3yqaSc3YuL0aMMSYglIfpMmpqTVD2/N7alLyvJwuVh XWpKPfXFwpQI99Zjo7VDssI24yQrlh0DB6apu59xlDkFxsniPp3IfoYji7+NPMDpW7hm ATjQ0fRf+99wVC9OaVv+HdwVX9ogPVnbEcHzRTaKf4WH6mnDydK1ZsPqEWgf/m/+ohyy jVOhfioNJ8yV5XMm0apX3PW33XOnhRzTrkJeEj7nQvCohqwZ1MeKdDggenDGBvaeADSx kluA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=vAJDOGj//VL9TT7xKvSXTwbb49lKhlQHS/Gj7DLd7zo=; b=Lcqjhl5TgrShACKuMpkUEKtUi7emIh5/IFqY6isOYVqOgJWm09UBC39+n6C0ksYcQP NFlitHGUGaQ5HYhnzciFS/FjhXTY3ULkOrzq4k/T5qITN1EqGNxUpzUUveQnJKKAMr8x trjHjB6ueZEX/G3pYy+ON8AcuGnZZRq1vZ2vcVpAnsiFAvqr6hgQXWdqDlYuYerFWrd8 BmpknjnVADaWhRtsor/rTy1xRyQcJTZsQrHRrjPaHcGwKyPiUSdSuL9Ds6HxX4yhkmR4 0NLdRXN4IDl22Q5STf1J2N0jQweekWXiLNHrJ4/mVcZqrOKBBeneQEOD4vvc9/DvszcH LaLQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H03ez+YxUzS8THaRZD9DlsQCXxiIPdgS47XuNwI6vmwcfoHIxt0SXGlloHJs7dVNA== X-Received: by 10.99.181.86 with SMTP id u22mr20752455pgo.102.1490562720077; Sun, 26 Mar 2017 14:12:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPv6:2601:600:9000:d69e:9053:3eee:f863:4f1c? ([2601:600:9000:d69e:9053:3eee:f863:4f1c]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id a62sm16419150pgc.60.2017.03.26.14.11.59 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 26 Mar 2017 14:11:59 -0700 (PDT) To: Bryan Bishop , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion , Peter R References: <5b9ba6c4-6d8f-9c0b-2420-2be6c30f87b5@cannon-ciota.info> <35ba77db-f95a-4517-c960-8ad42a633ba0@gmail.com> <9C2A6867-470D-4336-8439-17F4E0CA4B17@gmx.com> <9EB5050D-E54E-4E8B-84C6-95CC1FAC4081@gmx.com> From: Eric Voskuil X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110 Message-ID: <0ee42982-22d9-7e3f-23aa-f3743df88a6a@voskuil.org> Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2017 14:12:20 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.5.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM autolearn=no version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 26 Mar 2017 21:23:12 +0000 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Defending against empty or near empty blocks from malicious miner takeover? X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2017 21:12:01 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 03/26/2017 01:22 PM, Bryan Bishop via bitcoin-dev wrote: > On Sun, Mar 26, 2017 at 2:05 PM, Peter R via bitcoin-dev > > wrote: > > With a tightening of the rule set, a hash power minority that has > not upgraded will not produce a minority branch; instead they will > simply have any invalid blocks they produce orphaned, serving as a > wake-up call to upgrade. > > False. With bip9-based soft-fork-based activation of segwit, miner > blocks will not be orphaned unless they are intentionally > segwit-invalid (which they currently are not). If you have told > miners otherwise, let me know. Given the protocol requirements of the segwit proposal this is not the case. A miner running pre-segwit code will produce blocks that no segwit node will ever receive. It matters not whether these blocks contain transactions that are invalidated by the soft fork. Despite being valid to other pre-segwit nodes they will never be built upon by the majority hash power once segwit activates. At the same time, Peter's comment above is also incorrect. A "minority branch" *is* a set of blocks that have been orphaned (the term orphan being a misnomer, since these blocks of course have an ancestry all the way to the genesis block). That's precisely what is implied by the word "minority". So his description contradicts itself. e -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJY2C6pAAoJEDzYwH8LXOFOf4gH/2e/euZ9bQxPKZyC7DN8us6T R1R9f+JFFsU3Vo8HkcU028Ib4aF0IAELvAWrhpZfH6ixZV2c3CJoi53rMbPmJ/+H Rlj0Qjc58mYpqosxyNoi0qPFZ2e3yCv+R5v9PQEeOdcGwXIr77Tij8lI1yu4uqHU bqJ3BXJLFpvL5iXOLhbakeu2qVIHqJnb1/hQMNh6eNM794n+UT2T8You52xUkuTm zJ+5CTQUiMNFE/HBWsbk8Vf3BTrM0sqMRTJzdr4VT1l+uOZn58BJJPFzLr2WeZww klAB/wK5oExMNlKQVy6Rw9+uFx88qRTl5s7LwFASOxEZYJIjd36bBaoTdqfaB5U= =pvlp -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----