From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd•org>
To: Jonathan Toomim <j@toom•im>
Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] An implementation of BIP102 as a softfork.
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2015 06:19:55 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20151230141955.GA15588@muck> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <8E12B367-1A55-435F-9244-101C09094BDA@toom.im>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2272 bytes --]
On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 05:29:05AM -0800, Jonathan Toomim via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> As a first impression, I think this proposal is intellectually interesting, but crufty and hackish and should never actually be deployed. Writing code for Bitcoin in a future in which we have deployed a few generalized softforks this way sounds terrifying.
<snip>
> It might be possible to make that a bit simpler with recursion, or by doing subsequent generalized softforks in a way that doesn't have multi-levels-deep block-within-a-block-within-a-block stuff. Still: ugh.
Your fear is misplaced: it's trivial to avoid recursion with a bit of
planning.
For instance, if Bitcoin was redesigned to incorporate the forced fork
concept, instead of block headers committing to just a merkle root,
they could instead commit to H(version + digest)
For version == 0, digest would be a merkle root of all transactions. If
the version was > 0, any digest would be allowed and the block would be
interpreted as a NOP with no effect on the UTXO set.
In the event of a major change - e.g. what would otherwise be a
hard-forking change to the way the merkle root was calculated - a
soft-fork would change the block validity rules to make version == 0
invalid, and verison == 1 blocks would interpret the digest according to
the new merkle root rules. Again, version > 1 blocks would be treated as
NOPs.
A good exercise is to apply the above to the existing Bitcoin ecosystem
as a soft-fork - it certainely can be done, and done right is
technically very simple.
Regardless of how it's done - existing Bitcoin compatible or clean sheet
redesign - you get the significant safety advantages soft-forks have
over hard-forks in nearly all situations where you'd have to do a
hard-fork. OTOH, it's kinda scary how this institutionalizes what could
be seen as 51% attacks, possibly giving miners significantly more
control over the system politically. I'm not sure I agree with that
viewpoint - miners can do this anyway - but that has made people shy
away from promoting this idea in the past. (previously it's been often
referred to as an "evil" soft-fork)
--
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
00000000000000000831fc2554d9370aeba2701fff09980123d24a615eee7416
[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 650 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-12-30 14:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-12-30 5:46 joe2015
2015-12-30 10:33 ` Marco Falke
2015-12-30 16:27 ` joe2015
[not found] ` <CAKJqnrE7W8aRgracL1cy_hBLWpVsTAQL4qg4ViSP9aCHvM1yvA@mail.gmail.com>
2016-01-03 3:51 ` joe2015
2016-01-04 18:04 ` Nick ODell
2016-01-05 1:26 ` joe2015
2016-01-12 3:58 ` joe2015
2015-12-30 13:29 ` Jonathan Toomim
2015-12-30 13:57 ` Marcel Jamin
2015-12-30 14:19 ` Peter Todd [this message]
2015-12-30 14:31 ` Peter Todd
2015-12-30 15:00 ` Jonathan Toomim
2015-12-30 11:16 Martijn Meijering
2015-12-30 14:28 ` Peter Todd
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20151230141955.GA15588@muck \
--to=pete@petertodd$(echo .)org \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=j@toom$(echo .)im \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox