summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/28/1851ebaf14adfc1f9564aacce16682ac8bd638
blob: fc3894bfd4d8a5208d3c7b3a55715e0f352c65c0 (plain)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193]
	helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
	by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <tier.nolan@gmail.com>) id 1YqTHp-0005FA-2X
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Thu, 07 May 2015 21:24:53 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.192.42 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.192.42; envelope-from=tier.nolan@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-qg0-f42.google.com; 
Received: from mail-qg0-f42.google.com ([209.85.192.42])
	by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76) id 1YqTHn-000851-A5
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Thu, 07 May 2015 21:24:53 +0000
Received: by qgej70 with SMTP id j70so27829179qge.2
	for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
	Thu, 07 May 2015 14:24:45 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.55.21.166 with SMTP id 38mr1495202qkv.88.1431033885826; Thu,
	07 May 2015 14:24:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.140.85.241 with HTTP; Thu, 7 May 2015 14:24:45 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20150507200023.GI63100@giles.gnomon.org.uk>
References: <20150507200023.GI63100@giles.gnomon.org.uk>
Date: Thu, 7 May 2015 22:24:45 +0100
Message-ID: <CAE-z3OVgX9S0sJqq-iFdkZn_wK-a=Vs4VpNwxpcagDEYFzNSDQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Tier Nolan <tier.nolan@gmail.com>
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1147efce6d3eb00515848a86
X-Spam-Score: 1.7 (+)
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
	(tier.nolan[at]gmail.com)
	-0.0 SPF_PASS               SPF: sender matches SPF record
	1.2 MISSING_HEADERS        Missing To: header
	1.0 HTML_MESSAGE           BODY: HTML included in message
	-0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from
	author's domain
	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
	1.6 MALFORMED_FREEMAIL Bad headers on message from free email service
	-0.5 AWL AWL: Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
X-Headers-End: 1YqTHn-000851-A5
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Mechanics of a hard fork
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: Thu, 07 May 2015 21:24:53 -0000

--001a1147efce6d3eb00515848a86
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

In terms of miners, a strong supermajority is arguably sufficient, even 75%
would be enough.

The near total consensus required is merchants and users.  If (almost) all
merchants and users updated and only 75% of the miners updated, then that
would give a successful hard-fork.

On the other hand, if 99.99% of the miners updated and only 75% of
merchants and 75% of users updated, then that would be a serioud split of
the network.

The advantage of strong miner support is that it effectively kills the fork
that follows the old rules.  The 25% of merchants and users sees a
blockchain stall.

Miners are likely to switch to the fork that is worth the most.  A mining
pool could even give 2 different sub-domains.  A hasher can pick which
rule-set to follow.  Most likely, they would converge on the fork which
paid the most, but the old ruleset would likely still have some hashing
power and would eventually re-target.

On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 9:00 PM, Roy Badami <roy@gnomon.org.uk> wrote:

> I'd love to have more discussion of exactly how a hard fork should be
> implemented.  I think it might actually be of some value to have rough
> consensus on that before we get too bogged down with exactly what the
> proposed hard fork should do.  After all, how can we debate whether a
> particular hard fork proposal has consensus if we haven't even decided
> what level of supermajority is needed to establish consensus?
>
> For instance, back in 2012 Gavin was proposing, effectively, that a
> hard fork should require a supermajority of 99% of miners in order to
> succeed:
>
> https://gist.github.com/gavinandresen/2355445
>
> More recently, Gavin has proposed that a supermoajority of only 80% of
> miners should be needed in order to trigger the hard fork.
>
>
> http://www.gavintech.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/twenty-megabytes-testing-results.html
>
> Just now, on this list (see attached message) Gavin seems to be
> aluding to some mechanism for a hard fork which involves consensus of
> full nodes, and then a soft fork preceeding the hard fork, which I'd
> love to see a full explanation of.
>
> FWIW, I think 80% is far too low to establish consensus for a hard
> fork.  I think the supermajority of miners should be sufficiently
> large that the rump doesn't constitute a viable coin.  If you don't
> have that very strong level of consensus then you risk forking Bitcoin
> into two competing coins (and I believe we already have one exchange
> promissing to trade both forks as long as the blockchains are alive).
>
> As a starting point, I think 35/36th of miners (approximately 97.2%)
> is the minimum I would be comfortable with.  It means that the rump
> coin will initially have an average confirmation time of 6 hours
> (until difficulty, very slowly, adjusts) which is probably far enough
> from viable that the majority of holdouts will quickly desert it too.
>
> Thoughs?
>
> roy
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> One dashboard for servers and applications across Physical-Virtual-Cloud
> Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications
> Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable Insights
> Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing using APM Insight.
> http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>
>

--001a1147efce6d3eb00515848a86
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div><div>In terms of miners, a strong supermajority is ar=
guably sufficient, even 75% would be enough.<br><br></div>The near total co=
nsensus required is merchants and users.=C2=A0 If (almost) all merchants an=
d users updated and only 75% of the miners updated, then that would give a =
successful hard-fork.<br><br></div><div>On the other hand, if 99.99% of the=
 miners updated and only 75% of merchants and 75% of users updated, then th=
at would be a serioud split of the network.<br><br></div><div>The advantage=
 of strong miner support is that it effectively kills the fork that follows=
 the old rules.=C2=A0 The 25% of merchants and users sees a blockchain stal=
l.<br><br></div><div>Miners are likely to switch to the fork that is worth =
the most.=C2=A0 A mining pool could even give 2 different sub-domains.=C2=
=A0 A hasher can pick which rule-set to follow.=C2=A0 Most likely, they wou=
ld converge on the fork which paid the most, but the old ruleset would like=
ly still have some hashing power and would eventually re-target.<br></div><=
/div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Thu, May =
7, 2015 at 9:00 PM, Roy Badami <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:roy@=
gnomon.org.uk" target=3D"_blank">roy@gnomon.org.uk</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br=
><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1=
px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">I&#39;d love to have more discussion of exa=
ctly how a hard fork should be<br>
implemented.=C2=A0 I think it might actually be of some value to have rough=
<br>
consensus on that before we get too bogged down with exactly what the<br>
proposed hard fork should do.=C2=A0 After all, how can we debate whether a<=
br>
particular hard fork proposal has consensus if we haven&#39;t even decided<=
br>
what level of supermajority is needed to establish consensus?<br>
<br>
For instance, back in 2012 Gavin was proposing, effectively, that a<br>
hard fork should require a supermajority of 99% of miners in order to<br>
succeed:<br>
<br>
<a href=3D"https://gist.github.com/gavinandresen/2355445" target=3D"_blank"=
>https://gist.github.com/gavinandresen/2355445</a><br>
<br>
More recently, Gavin has proposed that a supermoajority of only 80% of<br>
miners should be needed in order to trigger the hard fork.<br>
<br>
<a href=3D"http://www.gavintech.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/twenty-megabytes-tes=
ting-results.html" target=3D"_blank">http://www.gavintech.blogspot.co.uk/20=
15/01/twenty-megabytes-testing-results.html</a><br>
<br>
Just now, on this list (see attached message) Gavin seems to be<br>
aluding to some mechanism for a hard fork which involves consensus of<br>
full nodes, and then a soft fork preceeding the hard fork, which I&#39;d<br=
>
love to see a full explanation of.<br>
<br>
FWIW, I think 80% is far too low to establish consensus for a hard<br>
fork.=C2=A0 I think the supermajority of miners should be sufficiently<br>
large that the rump doesn&#39;t constitute a viable coin.=C2=A0 If you don&=
#39;t<br>
have that very strong level of consensus then you risk forking Bitcoin<br>
into two competing coins (and I believe we already have one exchange<br>
promissing to trade both forks as long as the blockchains are alive).<br>
<br>
As a starting point, I think 35/36th of miners (approximately 97.2%)<br>
is the minimum I would be comfortable with.=C2=A0 It means that the rump<br=
>
coin will initially have an average confirmation time of 6 hours<br>
(until difficulty, very slowly, adjusts) which is probably far enough<br>
from viable that the majority of holdouts will quickly desert it too.<br>
<br>
Thoughs?<br>
<span class=3D"HOEnZb"><font color=3D"#888888"><br>
roy</font></span><br>------------------------------------------------------=
------------------------<br>
One dashboard for servers and applications across Physical-Virtual-Cloud<br=
>
Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications<br>
Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable Insights<br=
>
Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing using APM Insight.<br>
<a href=3D"http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y" target=
=3D"_blank">http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y</a><br>=
_______________________________________________<br>
Bitcoin-development mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net">Bitcoin-develo=
pment@lists.sourceforge.net</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development=
" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-de=
velopment</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>

--001a1147efce6d3eb00515848a86--