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
|
Return-Path: <luke@dashjr.org>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C129125A
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 1 Nov 2015 19:06:58 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from zinan.dashjr.org (zinan.dashjr.org [192.3.11.21])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6865B15E
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 1 Nov 2015 19:06:58 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from ishibashi.localnet (unknown
[IPv6:2001:470:5:265:61b6:56a6:b03d:28d6])
(Authenticated sender: luke-jr)
by zinan.dashjr.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 06A1B38A6077
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 1 Nov 2015 19:06:45 +0000 (UTC)
X-Hashcash: 1:25:151101:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org::uk5zI6Zh5MoTfu4J:a6T0n
From: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org>
To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2015 19:06:43 +0000
User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/4.1.9-gentoo-r1; KDE/4.14.8; x86_64; ; )
X-PGP-Key-Fingerprint: E463 A93F 5F31 17EE DE6C 7316 BD02 9424 21F4 889F
X-PGP-Key-ID: BD02942421F4889F
X-PGP-Keyserver: hkp://pgp.mit.edu
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <201511011906.44081.luke@dashjr.org>
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD
autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Subject: [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: Sun, 01 Nov 2015 19:06:58 -0000
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
|
