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
|
Return-Path: <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3FDED482
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 23 Jul 2015 11:10:50 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-wi0-f179.google.com (mail-wi0-f179.google.com
[209.85.212.179])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ACE3A14B
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 23 Jul 2015 11:10:47 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by wibud3 with SMTP id ud3so19003639wib.1
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 23 Jul 2015 04:10:46 -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=22AQK8RLYbj91UNOmzAPWEiIHpovXMSZ+2H6dSHVsps=;
b=cB+Or09ip7baOCw0G57Is5vx+EqoK+4Q0F6Oll1HgH+YQ8/mMXXxoN4x8XVHcLsxvc
PZEv6w/MiDblVlZuBNK0HVzdRNgtxtIfDBDikjizVihzCt/5kDIEfyZtBczYKRfpEFQm
ZSXix/m/8jby2hNGoUpuhPB8I2wNNl9xhadofe7SX3KxS4xUpQMWzt4M87uFCNq5dq2d
m0PwQCZ0rifO3rv9yEpb4La44uNJLOrl963Mo8MrE8t94djjwWJvVDWmDKjIV+MXt/Z0
gL1ct6hT63TZN0HpTOL0+qnduIzP8rsTduYkm+mbTUGZM0aUtcohisE+jSRX2njAYk60
vpMg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkTSIXU1NKvVUDug+iaWEVgRWsOzdDySSfK1QkmDI2IRr3iO3Ojl0jVNbuI3XucTcCd7N/X
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.21.175 with SMTP id w15mr16193697wie.58.1437649846044;
Thu, 23 Jul 2015 04:10:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.194.95.168 with HTTP; Thu, 23 Jul 2015 04:10:45 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAE-z3OVgQFaFAWUJhDLzyMAE2AXoGHTy0NbUADDAZW9-veX8XA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABm2gDqPBPiDG1BUAipEsLfyE1VFyvdqdoxtYjkKvGDvBQ8qMg@mail.gmail.com>
<CAE-z3OVM8vwjo_-FOggSoOWR78w=Rmm+GS7Xv9uSK0jdx1_zdw@mail.gmail.com>
<CABm2gDrs6XwG5imH3pFFDB71kx2dSfhR7kjc6Pw8hvDKqGvTPQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CAE-z3OVgQFaFAWUJhDLzyMAE2AXoGHTy0NbUADDAZW9-veX8XA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 13:10:45 +0200
Message-ID: <CABm2gDrrqubbZ7MjDppu-eFxJGcydVoSAK2SC=-s-0txYX6GRQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
To: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@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 <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>,
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] [Bitcoin-development] [BIP draft] Motivation and
deployment of consensus rules changes ([soft/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 11:10:50 -0000
Discussions about whether to get miner's confirmation on
uncontroversial hardforks or not, and about whether to use nHeight,
nMedianTime or just use nTime are spreading all around. Hopefully
getting a BIP number (even though this is still a draft) will help
concentrating discussions about deployment of uncontroversial
hardforks to a single place.
Greg, can I get a BIP number for this?
On Sun, Jun 21, 2015 at 12:54 PM, Tier Nolan <tier.nolan@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 21, 2015 at 11:31 AM, Jorge Tim=C3=B3n <jtimon@jtimon.cc> wro=
te:
>>
>> You mean the timewarp fix can be coded as a softfork instead of a
>> hardfork? How so?
>
>
> The easiest would be a rule requiring that all blocks are within 1 day of
> the median of the previous 11 blocks. At the moment, you need to be grea=
ter
> than that value. This would add a condition at the other end.
>
> It wouldn't be a total fix, but it would protect against the exploit.
>
> A stricter soft fork would be that the two blocks in question have to hav=
e
> the same timestamp. This would force the off by 1 and the correct value =
to
> give the same result.
>
>> If that's the case, do you have a better candidate?
>
>
> I think it is fine, since fixing it "right" does require a hard fork,
> especially if it is only to show a non controversial hard fork.
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-----
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>
|
