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
|
Return-Path: <aj@erisian.com.au>
Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org (smtp1.osuosl.org [140.211.166.138])
by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63AB3C0001
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 22 Feb 2021 05:16:38 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B3008355F
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 22 Feb 2021 05:16:38 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (smtp1.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id s6bS5C3ml7sw
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 22 Feb 2021 05:16:37 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0
Received: from azure.erisian.com.au (cerulean.erisian.com.au [139.162.42.226])
by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F056383508
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 22 Feb 2021 05:16:36 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from aj@azure.erisian.com.au (helo=sapphire.erisian.com.au)
by azure.erisian.com.au with esmtpsa (Exim 4.92 #3 (Debian))
id 1lE3aA-0002cb-Im; Mon, 22 Feb 2021 15:16:32 +1000
Received: by sapphire.erisian.com.au (sSMTP sendmail emulation);
Mon, 22 Feb 2021 15:16:24 +1000
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2021 15:16:24 +1000
From: Anthony Towns <aj@erisian.com.au>
To: Matt Corallo <lf-lists@mattcorallo.com>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Message-ID: <20210222051624.6eklzfec2bf4lqdk@erisian.com.au>
References: <CALqxMTFKbjg3yDPnrmL8TgtypirB_fDMMJD=AJxjYav51hmEAw@mail.gmail.com>
<E3E39A9A-82B4-4096-9DA1-A4D758CC7B68@mattcorallo.com>
<ce8925d5-d2f1-1adb-530d-36f89f5b6352@bluematt.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <ce8925d5-d2f1-1adb-530d-36f89f5b6352@bluematt.me>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2)
X-Spam-Score-int: -18
X-Spam-Bar: -
Cc: Michael Folkson <michaelfolkson@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Yesterday's Taproot activation meeting on
lockinontimeout (LOT)
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Mon, 22 Feb 2021 05:16:38 -0000
On Fri, Feb 19, 2021 at 12:48:00PM -0500, Matt Corallo via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> It was pointed out to me that this discussion is largely moot as the
> software complexity for Bitcoin Core to ship an option like this is likely
> not practical/what people would wish to see.
> Bitcoin Core does not have infrastructure to handle switching consensus
> rules with the same datadir - after running with uasf=true for some time,
> valid blocks will be marked as invalid,
I don't think this is true? With the current proposed bip8 code,
lockinontimeout=true will cause headers to be marked as invalid, and
won't process the block further. If a node running lockinontimeout=true
accepts the header, then it will apply the same consensus rules as a
lockinontimeout=false node.
I don't think an invalid header will be added to the block index at all,
so a node restart should always cleanly allow it to be reconsidered.
The test case in
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19573/commits/bd8517135fc839c3332fea4d9c8373b94c8c9de8
tests that a node that had rejected a chain due to lockinontimeout=true
will reorg to that chain after being restarted as a byproduct of the way
it tests different cases (the nodes set a new startheight, but retain
their lockinontimeout settings).
(I think with the current bip8 code, if you switch from
lockinontimeout=false to lockinontimeout=true and the tip of the current
most work chain is after the timeoutheight and did not lockin, then you
will continue following that chain until a taproot-invalid transaction
is inclued, rather than immediately reorging to a shorter chain that
complies with the lockinontimeout=true rules)
Cheers,
aj
|
