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
|
Return-Path: <lf-lists@mattcorallo.com>
Received: from hemlock.osuosl.org (smtp2.osuosl.org [140.211.166.133])
by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B1BBC0001
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 22 Feb 2021 06:44:59 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by hemlock.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 308A987096
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 22 Feb 2021 06:44:59 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
Received: from hemlock.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id kGWqq4nYQuo4
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 22 Feb 2021 06:44:58 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail.as397444.net (mail.as397444.net [69.59.18.99])
by hemlock.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5295487095
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 22 Feb 2021 06:44:58 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail.as397444.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DA9064AE236;
Mon, 22 Feb 2021 06:44:55 +0000 (UTC)
X-DKIM-Note: Keys used to sign are likely public at https://as397444.net/dkim/
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mattcorallo.com;
s=1613974863; t=1613976295;
bh=uPHMzqZWPOBkSpljrT9GFLfAV7/hKmWyZXTW1Zy3ix4=;
h=From:Subject:Date:References:Cc:In-Reply-To:To:From;
b=XwXW/jbwlFQpw32xVmmhJdSwCMeRkql+u/ODfStlpfIUZEynJN9W3Gjp2mHEgGn+R
spQh47K6Up31mWcOWPV2hnF5ae/5hTnEyE7J+/W2HcyuKugXldCS8d7cl0AMUlWBwx
/sW1KAPYE2+YYCJJsgDUoYmqrHobcz7Fe+BVPRFBm2vJtGLu/iFf/0jDu4K8Ut6h6M
tczKLMoJSQ4gobqfcO6TxCEhVuWpSi62M41Fwtyu1Bw73HZLyLRLRnf8HaEvTNQmLs
hWahAqFnl9a5d3RzblnBR9AJzLNbF0KPNktW3Yz8CrE9c7cJJdUEN8F+VFu2D/2BFY
ffr96Y2IVvkHA==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: Matt Corallo <lf-lists@mattcorallo.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2021 01:44:55 -0500
Message-Id: <4FF38E1A-677B-478C-B32F-4640DF867810@mattcorallo.com>
References: <20210222051624.6eklzfec2bf4lqdk@erisian.com.au>
In-Reply-To: <20210222051624.6eklzfec2bf4lqdk@erisian.com.au>
To: Anthony Towns <aj@erisian.com.au>
Cc: Michael Folkson <michaelfolkson@gmail.com>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Yesterday's Taproot activation meeting on
lockinontimeout (LOT)
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2021 06:44:59 -0000
Hmm, indeed, I may have missed that you can skip the headers issues by not p=
ersisting them, though there are other follow-on effects that are concerning=
and I think still make my point valid.
A node feeding you invalid headers (used to be) cause for a ban - is that in=
formation still persisted? More importantly, nodes on both sides of the fork=
need to find each other. There=E2=80=99s not a great way to do that without=
forking the address database, DNS seeds and defining a new protocol magic.
Matt
> On Feb 22, 2021, at 00:16, Anthony Towns <aj@erisian.com.au> wrote:
>=20
> =EF=BB=BFOn Fri, Feb 19, 2021 at 12:48:00PM -0500, Matt Corallo via bitcoi=
n-dev wrote:
>> It was pointed out to me that this discussion is largely moot as the
>> software complexity for Bitcoin Core to ship an option like this is likel=
y
>> not practical/what people would wish to see.
>> Bitcoin Core does not have infrastructure to handle switching consensus
>> rules with the same datadir - after running with uasf=3Dtrue for some tim=
e,
>> valid blocks will be marked as invalid,=20
>=20
> I don't think this is true? With the current proposed bip8 code,
> lockinontimeout=3Dtrue will cause headers to be marked as invalid, and
> won't process the block further. If a node running lockinontimeout=3Dtrue
> accepts the header, then it will apply the same consensus rules as a
> lockinontimeout=3Dfalse node.
>=20
> I don't think an invalid header will be added to the block index at all,
> so a node restart should always cleanly allow it to be reconsidered.
>=20
> The test case in
>=20
> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19573/commits/bd8517135fc839c3332f=
ea4d9c8373b94c8c9de8
>=20
> tests that a node that had rejected a chain due to lockinontimeout=3Dtrue
> will reorg to that chain after being restarted as a byproduct of the way
> it tests different cases (the nodes set a new startheight, but retain
> their lockinontimeout settings).
>=20
>=20
> (I think with the current bip8 code, if you switch from
> lockinontimeout=3Dfalse to lockinontimeout=3Dtrue and the tip of the curre=
nt
> most work chain is after the timeoutheight and did not lockin, then you
> will continue following that chain until a taproot-invalid transaction
> is inclued, rather than immediately reorging to a shorter chain that
> complies with the lockinontimeout=3Dtrue rules)
>=20
> Cheers,
> aj
>=20
|
