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
|
Return-Path: <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4C951D8E
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 30 Sep 2015 02:57:54 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-ig0-f169.google.com (mail-ig0-f169.google.com
[209.85.213.169])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9028713F
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 30 Sep 2015 02:57:53 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by igbkq10 with SMTP id kq10so95194596igb.0
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 29 Sep 2015 19:57:53 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
:cc:content-type;
bh=++Mc21nd2k8DUAgZkz2ZM73eFx6L1CJfHFGPUyNVvF0=;
b=0fQC7tCldJ7ucE1gvmBTzZn5zv5GbbxH9HYmGrWEb0PVm1KuK0pM3nIJET3tddXf01
zbTciFKzLiVZ2j/1yredlKvH0lDFezv8n0aiuBizRNEQySNSKHwmlUl0RyvMBgdA5Xyv
gL7y7j2rOrmxYFyze8BXlqPvWAxYeJnZExI+ojtgRuatWZgIjwImGdT5s94kWxIub62P
r4c+BGpjJ6iV2tB/Vtj1CHZxnurq0sWAhlNPCFEFDIXyTj43b8Tx2HDoqqxbSHdth4ih
PZYtF4X7GC3/PSoxpC7mIxXcOt6SE7eBNE6WgcQ+V7jfZOudQWewrQlB29NGbsJTQ/fA
PNiQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.142.7 with SMTP id rs7mr26563619igb.62.1443581873012;
Tue, 29 Sep 2015 19:57:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.107.19.30 with HTTP; Tue, 29 Sep 2015 19:57:52 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <87zj04fxkw.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>
References: <87zj04fxkw.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 02:57:52 +0000
Message-ID: <CAAS2fgTXP0j6K3sxp=HL9j2-xvO8y_VnpG+iZw9kaxmnxZQjSw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
To: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM,
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 <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>,
Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Versionbits BIP (009) minor revision proposal.
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: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 02:57:54 -0000
On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 2:30 AM, Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Pieter and Eric pointed out that the current BIP has miners
> turning off the bit as soon as it's locked in (75% testnet / 95%
> mainnet). It's better for them to keep setting the bit until activation
> (2016 blocks later), so network adoption is visible.
>
> I'm not proposing another suggestion, though I note it for future:
> miners keep setting the bit for another 2016 blocks after activation,
> and have a consensus rule that rejects blocks without the bit. That
> would "force" upgrades on those last miners. I feel we should see how
> this works first.
Actually getting rid of the immediate bit forcing was something I
considered to be an advantage of versionbits over prior work.
Consider, where possible we carve soft fork features out from
non-standard behavior. Why do we do this? Primarily so that
non-upgraded miners are not mining invalid transactions which
immediately cause short lived forks once the soft-fork activates.
(Secondarily to protect wallets from unconfirmed TX that won't ever
confirm).
The version forcing, however, guarantees existence of the same forks
that the usage of non-standard prevented!
I can, however, argue it the other way (and probably have in the
past): The bit is easily checked by thin clients, so thin clients
could use it to reject potentially ill-fated blocks from non-upgraded
miners post switch (which otherwise they couldn't reject without
inspecting the whole thing). This is an improvement over not forcing
the bit, and it's why I was previously in favor of the way the
versions were enforced. But, experience has played out other ways,
and thin clients have not done anything useful with the version
numbers.
A middle ground might be to require setting the bit for a period of
time after rule enforcing begins, but don't enforce the bit, just
enforce validity of the block under new rules. Thus a thin client
could treat these blocks with increased skepticism.
|
