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
|
Return-Path: <jl2012@xbt.hk>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EE5A6259
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 2 Nov 2015 04:27:57 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from s47.web-hosting.com (s47.web-hosting.com [199.188.200.16])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4C9FB139
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 2 Nov 2015 04:27:57 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost ([::1]:49049 helo=server47.web-hosting.com)
by server47.web-hosting.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.85)
(envelope-from <jl2012@xbt.hk>)
id 1Zt6ik-003tuw-Vt; Sun, 01 Nov 2015 23:27:51 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8;
format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Date: Sun, 01 Nov 2015 23:27:50 -0500
From: jl2012@xbt.hk
To: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org>
In-Reply-To: <201511011906.44081.luke@dashjr.org>
References: <201511011906.44081.luke@dashjr.org>
Message-ID: <67789addeb5a0e702998f26cc16a8dbd@xbt.hk>
X-Sender: jl2012@xbt.hk
User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.0.5
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse,
please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - server47.web-hosting.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - xbt.hk
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: server47.web-hosting.com: authenticated_id:
jl2012@xbt.hk
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
X-From-Rewrite: unmodified, already matched
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,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] BIP 113: Median time-past is a HARDfork,
not a softfork!
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Development 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, 02 Nov 2015 04:27:58 -0000
Currently, a tx maybe included in a block only if its locktime (x) is
smaller than the timestamp of a block (y)
BIP113 says that a tx maybe included in a block only if x is smaller
than the median-time-past (z)
It is already a consensus rule that y > z. Therefore, if x < z, x < y
The new rule is absolutely stricter than the old rule, so it is a
softfork. Anything wrong with my interpretation?
Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev 於 2015-11-01 14:06 寫到:
> BIP 113 makes things valid which currently are not (any transaction
> with a
> locktime between the median time past, and the block nTime). Therefore
> it is a
> hardfork. Yet the current BIP describes and deploys it as a softfork.
>
> Furthermore, Bitcoin Core one week ago merged #6566 adding BIP 113
> logic to
> the mempool and block creation. This will probably produce invalid
> blocks
> (which CNB's safety TestBlockValidity call should catch), and should be
> reverted until an appropriate solution is determined.
>
> Rusty suggested something like adding N hours to the median time past
> for
> comparison, and to be a proper hardfork, this must be max()'d with the
> block
> nTime. On the other hand, if we will have a hardfork in the next year
> or so,
> it may be best to just hold off and deploy as part of that.
>
> Further thoughts/input?
>
> Luke
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
|
