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
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
|
Return-Path: <cory@atlastechnologiesinc.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5FA259D
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 23 Jul 2015 00:34:26 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-wi0-f172.google.com (mail-wi0-f172.google.com
[209.85.212.172])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9AF56143
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 23 Jul 2015 00:34:25 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by wibud3 with SMTP id ud3so2041146wib.1
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 22 Jul 2015 17:34:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date
:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type
:content-transfer-encoding;
bh=SBpU/PbqZW1QTwjfn+5gn2xFTPfX3uwmH8QioktwRWE=;
b=E+0nWQTn9lYz4aNuDtY3/IKZD73aZFbWzfnAaziQOHldk3XezkBexvoJdYnAYY1Sfc
xu0a2FhQVZIPgbH6J94INM+klwCgQ8XRszBcrVc53T/s+yh9haVmGok2NGHsfDNa9fwn
lG9gjvvqdohqpebkRNchJ4d/bGvAcg6Rrz+LAFRQ5BeaO1FaEaZjch8V6cIrKPKTaGpK
wcT/WllBGPE1J41l3SUouklQ7QOwPxELmeVKW/V29dlAN6Wo0tEuSsBTee5AMaQbish9
1keYaXzMGC5UQf4r7+7iI4GmuOkfB82ABgrcja4/SSuNxOLKd54pBqRiyDZCDmDfR+iq
oxbQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQm4a26+JVnD2sI4+Uxx5q0f3sYOKTNEXDORf4P4Q1eje0jWp7227rh2xEEonXvYQI3wi7pi
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.99.71 with SMTP id eo7mr11535178wib.25.1437611664177;
Wed, 22 Jul 2015 17:34:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.194.168.167 with HTTP; Wed, 22 Jul 2015 17:34:23 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <B340ACFF-600F-45A9-BFE9-B831A4C6DD8E@gmail.com>
References: <COL402-EAS482BCC1B2EFF6D50273832CD830@phx.gbl>
<CAApLimjMPvXHM4McB+xBrho2hktz8Rr7QZyU-Dgbgd7sFdoyLw@mail.gmail.com>
<068B7F93-A1DF-4F8D-84FC-B787C5429D6A@gmail.com>
<CAApLimjiF6zH8GAbTajMTW6p8GtXCGRa5GcV+N2z1soY5fQy+A@mail.gmail.com>
<B340ACFF-600F-45A9-BFE9-B831A4C6DD8E@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 20:34:23 -0400
Message-ID: <CAApLimhFNeQ-1kpTT0YtOz2X0th563quOq1cFGhmL6VJcxFv8Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Cory Fields <lists@coryfields.com>
To: Eric Lombrozo <elombrozo@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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] Bitcoin Core and hard forks
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: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 00:34:26 -0000
On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 8:13 PM, Eric Lombrozo <elombrozo@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Jul 22, 2015, at 5:05 PM, Cory Fields <lists@coryfields.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 7:53 PM, Eric Lombrozo <elombrozo@gmail.com> wro=
te:
>>> FWIW, I had worked on something similar a while back:
>>> https://github.com/CodeShark/bitcoin/tree/coinparams_new/altconf
>>>
>>> I like the idea in principle=E2=80=A6but we should require a new genesi=
s block,
>>> different magic bytes, and a different network port at the very least. =
:)
>>>
>>
>> Not sure if serious, so I'll assume you are :)
>
> Only being partly serious - I strongly am in favor of a sufficiently modu=
larized codebase that swapping out consensus rules is fairly straightforwar=
d and easy to test. I=E2=80=99m not in favor of encouraging forking an exis=
ting blockchain without having mechanisms in place to gracefully merge back=
without significant network disruptions. We do not have this yet.
>
Again, why? If someone wants to create a scamcoin, they can. If
someone wants to burn money on a scamcoin, equally, they can. I'm not
sure how this is any different. If someone manages to garner realistic
support for a hard-fork, I don't see the benefit in forcing them to
use forked software.. that only leaves Core in the middle because it's
forced to choose a side (not choosing is unfortunately a side as
well). It doesn't remove the reality of the split.
>> Why? The idea in this case would be to allow the user to decide
>> between (say) "./bitcoind -1mbchain" and "./bitcoind -2mbchain" at
>> runtime rather than the likely alternative of "./bitcoind" vs
>> "./bitcoin-fork=E2=80=9D.
>
> That=E2=80=99s exactly what my coinparams_new branch does. Adding a param=
eter for maximum block size would be straightforward.
>
>> Chain params may be identical other than the value of some future
>> event (miner vote for example), in which case the configs would run
>> identically until that point.
>
> Yes, indeed - this would be a special case.
>
>> If your concern is about nodes with different configs communicating
>> with eachother, I'd like to reiterate: the idea really is no different
>> than suggesting that someone fork the codebase and implement their own
>> changes, it just cuts out most of the work required.
>
> I do not encourage anyone to try to fork an existing blockchain without f=
irst securing overwhelming (near unanimous) consensus=E2=80=A6or without ha=
ving yet built a mechanism that can merge divergent chains gracefully.
Well of course. It would be a terrible idea. People would try it and
fail, and lose money. But for those crying foul at Core for being the
consensus/policy gatekeeper, it seems to me that user-selectable
params is the only logical solution.
|
