From: Eric Voskuil <eric@voskuil•org>
To: Btc Drak <btcdrak@gmail•com>
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] [BIP Proposal] Buried Deployments
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 14:42:05 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <33BFC318-0BB4-48DB-B5DC-08247FAC6E5A@voskuil.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CADJgMzunxU2-7Z_ZPafNY4BPRu0x9oeh6v2dg0nUYqxJbXeGYA@mail.gmail.com>
Actually this does nothing to provide justification for this consensus rule change. It is just an attempt to deflect criticism from the fact that it is such a change.
e
> On Nov 15, 2016, at 9:45 AM, Btc Drak <btcdrak@gmail•com> wrote:
>
> I think this is already covered in the BIP text:-
>
> "As of November 2016, the most recent of these changes (BIP 65,
> enforced since December 2015) has nearly 50,000 blocks built on top of
> it. The occurrence of such a reorg that would cause the activating
> block to be disconnected would raise fundamental concerns about the
> security assumptions of Bitcoin, a far bigger issue than any
> non-backwards compatible change.
>
> So while this proposal could theoretically result in a consensus
> split, it is extremely unlikely, and in particular any such
> circumstances would be sufficiently damaging to the Bitcoin network to
> dwarf any concerns about the effects of this proposed change."
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 6:47 PM, Eric Voskuil via bitcoin-dev
> <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>> NACK
>>
>> Horrible precedent (hardcoding rule changes based on the assumption that
>> large forks indicate a catastrophic failure), extremely poor process
>> (already shipped, now the discussion), and not even a material performance
>> optimization (the checks are avoidable once activated until a sufficiently
>> deep reorg deactivates them).
>>
>> e
>>
>> On Nov 14, 2016, at 10:17 AM, Suhas Daftuar via bitcoin-dev
>> <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Recently Bitcoin Core merged a simplification to the consensus rules
>> surrounding deployment of BIPs 34, 66, and 65
>> (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8391), and though the change is a
>> minor one, I thought it was worth documenting the rationale in a BIP for
>> posterity.
>>
>> Here's the abstract:
>>
>> Prior soft forks (BIP 34, BIP 65, and BIP 66) were activated via miner
>> signaling in block version numbers. Now that the chain has long since passed
>> the blocks at which those consensus rules have triggered, we can (as a
>> simplification and optimization) replace the trigger mechanism by caching
>> the block heights at which those consensus rules became enforced.
>>
>> The full draft can be found here:
>>
>> https://github.com/sdaftuar/bips/blob/buried-deployments/bip-buried-deployments.mediawiki
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-11-15 22:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-11-14 18:17 Suhas Daftuar
2016-11-14 18:47 ` Eric Voskuil
2016-11-15 14:42 ` Suhas Daftuar
2016-11-15 17:45 ` Btc Drak
2016-11-15 22:42 ` Eric Voskuil [this message]
2016-11-16 13:29 ` Jameson Lopp
2016-11-16 13:58 ` Eric Voskuil
2016-11-16 14:18 ` Tier Nolan
2016-11-16 14:32 ` Alex Morcos
2016-11-16 21:01 ` Peter Todd
2016-11-16 22:21 ` Eric Voskuil
2016-11-17 3:06 ` Luke Dashjr
2016-11-16 14:18 ` Thomas Kerin
2016-11-16 23:58 ` Jorge Timón
2016-11-17 0:00 ` Eric Voskuil
2016-11-17 1:24 ` Alex Morcos
2016-11-17 1:41 ` Eric Voskuil
2016-11-17 0:13 ` Eric Voskuil
2016-11-16 23:48 ` Jorge Timón
2016-11-17 1:50 ` Pieter Wuille
2016-11-17 2:16 ` Eric Voskuil
2016-11-17 2:47 ` Pieter Wuille
2016-11-17 10:10 ` Eric Voskuil
2016-11-16 14:38 ` Tom Zander
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=33BFC318-0BB4-48DB-B5DC-08247FAC6E5A@voskuil.org \
--to=eric@voskuil$(echo .)org \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=btcdrak@gmail$(echo .)com \
/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