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
|
Return-Path: <rusty@ozlabs.org>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CC32C1E40
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 1 Oct 2015 02:15:14 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from ozlabs.org (ozlabs.org [103.22.144.67])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6DD0D16E
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 1 Oct 2015 02:15:14 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by ozlabs.org (Postfix, from userid 1011)
id AC657140D6C; Thu, 1 Oct 2015 12:15:11 +1000 (AEST)
From: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
To: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAAS2fgTXP0j6K3sxp=HL9j2-xvO8y_VnpG+iZw9kaxmnxZQjSw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <87zj04fxkw.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>
<CAAS2fgTXP0j6K3sxp=HL9j2-xvO8y_VnpG+iZw9kaxmnxZQjSw@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Notmuch/0.17 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/24.4.1
(x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
Date: Thu, 01 Oct 2015 09:56:51 +0930
Message-ID: <87bncjph6c.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,
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
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: Thu, 01 Oct 2015 02:15:14 -0000
Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com> writes:
> 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.
Introducing this later would trigger warnings on older clients, who
would consider the bit to represent a new soft fork :(
So if we want this middle ground, we should sew it in now, though it
adds a other state. Simplest is to have miners keep setting the bit for
another 2016 blocks. If we want to later, we can make this a consensus
rule.
"Bitcoin is hard, let's go shopping!" "With Bitcoin!" "..."
Rusty.
|
