From: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp•com.au>
To: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail•com>
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>,
Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail•com>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Versionbits BIP (009) minor revision proposal.
Date: Fri, 02 Oct 2015 10:52:14 +0930 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87d1wynjy1.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87bncjph6c.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>
Rusty Russell via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
writes:
> 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 :(
Actually, this isn't a decisive argument, since we can use the current
mechanism to upgrade versionbits, or as Eric says, tack it on to
an existing soft fork.
So, I think I'm back where I started. We leave this for now.
There was no nak on the "keep setting bit until activation" proposal, so
I'm opening a PullReq for that now:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/209
Cheers,
Rusty.
prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-10-02 1:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-09-30 2:30 Rusty Russell
2015-09-30 2:57 ` Gregory Maxwell
2015-09-30 4:46 ` Eric Lombrozo
2015-09-30 5:09 ` Eric Lombrozo
2015-10-01 0:26 ` Rusty Russell
2015-10-01 2:54 ` Eric Lombrozo
2015-10-02 1:22 ` Rusty Russell [this message]
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=87d1wynjy1.fsf@rustcorp.com.au \
--to=rusty@rustcorp$(echo .)com.au \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=gmaxwell@gmail$(echo .)com \
--cc=pieter.wuille@gmail$(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