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
|
Return-Path: <tomz@freedommail.ch>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 29F5CB56
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 16 Nov 2016 14:38:27 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mx-out02.mykolab.com (mx.kolabnow.com [95.128.36.1])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D715232E
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 16 Nov 2016 14:38:25 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at kolabnow.com
X-Spam-Score: -2.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW
autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
Received: from mx05.mykolab.com (mx05.mykolab.com [10.20.7.161])
by mx-out02.mykolab.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E20FF617CD
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 16 Nov 2016 15:38:22 +0100 (CET)
From: Tom Zander <tomz@freedommail.ch>
To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2016 15:38:21 +0100
Message-ID: <1797370.j3ssDbnHdc@strawberry>
In-Reply-To: <CEDAD65E-512A-43CA-9BD6-56F7D9E6897C@voskuil.org>
References: <CAFp6fsGmynRXLCqKAA+iBXObGOZ2h3DVW8k5L9kSfbPmL1Y-QQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CEDAD65E-512A-43CA-9BD6-56F7D9E6897C@voskuil.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 16 Nov 2016 14:42:04 +0000
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] [BIP Proposal] Buried Deployments
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Wed, 16 Nov 2016 14:38:27 -0000
Here is my thinking.
The BIP process is about changes to a living project which is the bitcoin=20
prptocol.
This specific BIP got accepted and we know in the blockchain that
this event (the acceptance) is recorded.
Before a certain block the rules were one way, after they were changed.
I have no problem with changing the *code* to be less complex because it=20
already knows the past. A checkpoint is the same, it is the registeration o=
f=20
a past event.
This makes software less complex and still capable of checking the entire=20
blockchain from genesis.
I don=E2=80=99t see any harm in this change. I see prudent software enginee=
ring=20
practices.
On Monday, 14 November 2016 10:47:35 CET Eric Voskuil via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> NACK
>=20
> Horrible precedent (hardcoding rule changes based on the assumption that
> large forks indicate a catastrophic failure), extremely poor process
> (already shipped, now the discussion), and not even a material
> performance optimization (the checks are avoidable once activated until a
> sufficiently deep reorg deactivates them).
=2D-=20
Tom Zander
Blog: https://zander.github.io
Vlog: https://vimeo.com/channels/tomscryptochannel
|
