Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B03BBAC2 for ; Sat, 4 Jul 2015 03:17:18 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-ig0-f174.google.com (mail-ig0-f174.google.com [209.85.213.174]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5D6A3FD for ; Sat, 4 Jul 2015 03:17:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: by igcsj18 with SMTP id sj18so198523999igc.1 for ; Fri, 03 Jul 2015 20:17:17 -0700 (PDT) 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:content-transfer-encoding; bh=kf2OHoyN/LFgG2Io1dcS2m9TsUIPIOBoUCJR8fFzC+U=; b=WDCjMw7i0hlqCeJyeNhFnPS9i5Y/u1VY2kx+CYYeMftYQ35BhAdBPxiX9Q6reAIWZq nNI3B7bNDUx005tweMo+SiLtwcxbqmU3fQyB1lCKi5OU3OHYzTJjPdB2JZobpuy+eR0c gZ4splv8N3F1UMLollVIlPGYUhoQGYAPT2aEJBAcQpw7JELlRjaDcIMAxG5bU5NrMN7n WMRQfQdSzNFfk+s01u64ySyEJ0XkYCAFNeIusrvvKDkbZcUmM+3D30snMSy+pvq5VgJN z+dyLbsV2+FFbzcxlVOB9qOL+5OQk4J7ywUyF26kI2kZsYIiTKcVBm9pOzB3IMWHh6By aHEg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.50.7.68 with SMTP id h4mr26608749iga.40.1435979837862; Fri, 03 Jul 2015 20:17:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.107.147.69 with HTTP; Fri, 3 Jul 2015 20:17:17 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Sat, 4 Jul 2015 03:17:17 +0000 Message-ID: From: Gregory Maxwell To: Raystonn Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, 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@lists.linuxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Fork of invalid blocks due to BIP66 violations 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: Sat, 04 Jul 2015 03:17:18 -0000 On Sat, Jul 4, 2015 at 3:11 AM, Raystonn wrote: > We need some analysis on why this has happened. It appears the larger ha= shrate is violating BIP66. Thus it appears the network is rejecting this B= IP, though potentially accidentally. If this is an accident, how is such a= large portion of hashrate forking, and what can we do to avoid this in the= future? A near majority of the hashrate on the network appears to be SPV mining. Btcnuggets was a non-upgraded miner that produced an invalid block after the lock in and f2pool and antpool have been extending it. Fortunately their extension contains no transactions (an artifact of SPV mining). Obviously a complete understanding is going to take some time; though I would note that this general failure mode was one we were aware of and is part of the reason the treshold is so high.