From: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp•com.au>
To: Tier Nolan <tier.nolan@gmail•com>,
Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] [BIP Proposal] Version bits with timeout and delay.
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 07:27:51 +0930 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87h9msiu8w.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAE-z3OWu7HgHh=8nAZMfJaekL03HHXvHrkRBho=aBAoRtHR9Eg@mail.gmail.com>
Tier Nolan via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
writes:
> The advantage of enforcing the rule when 75% is reached (but only for
> blocks with the bit set) is that miners get early notification that they
> have implemented the rule incorrectly. They might produce blocks that
> they think are fine, but which aren't.
Indeed. There are three believable failure possibilties:
1) You don't implement the rule at all, and don't set the bit.
2) You implement it and set bit, but think some valid block is invalid.
3) You implement it and set bit, but think some invalid block is valid.
#1 is by far the most common, and the proposal is designed so they
*always* get ~2 weeks warning before those drop to SPV security.
Assuming the mining majority isn't buggy (otherwise, it's arguably not a
bug but a feature!) #2 is the worst case: some miners fork off and don't
rejoin.
So there is a slight advantage in doing this early: those buggy miners
no longer contribute to the 95% threshold. But that's outweighed IMHO
by:
1) We would need another delay at 75% so #1 nodes can upgrade.
2) The new feature won't be exercised much before impliciation, since
it's useless before then, so it might not find bugs anyway.
In conclusion, I'm not convinced by the extra complexity.
Cheers,
Rusty.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-09-18 23:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-09-13 18:56 Rusty Russell
2015-09-16 15:53 ` Btc Drak
2015-09-16 17:53 ` Tier Nolan
2015-09-16 20:19 ` Rusty Russell
2015-09-16 20:27 ` Jorge Timón
2015-09-16 20:32 ` Tier Nolan
2015-09-16 20:38 ` Jorge Timón
2015-09-16 20:48 ` Tier Nolan
2015-09-16 20:54 ` Jorge Timón
2015-09-16 20:57 ` Tier Nolan
2015-09-16 21:03 ` Jorge Timón
2015-09-16 22:52 ` Eric Lombrozo
2015-09-17 10:38 ` Tier Nolan
2015-09-17 13:59 ` Jorge Timón
2015-09-17 21:57 ` Rusty Russell [this message]
2015-09-17 22:00 ` Rusty Russell
2015-09-19 5:04 ` Jorge Timón
2015-09-20 3:56 ` Rusty Russell
2015-09-21 8:24 ` Jorge Timón
2015-09-21 10:34 ` Rusty Russell
2015-09-16 20:30 ` Tier Nolan
2015-09-18 1:19 ` Rusty Russell
2015-09-23 18:33 ` Tom Harding
2015-09-23 19:01 ` Gavin Andresen
2015-09-30 2:05 ` Rusty Russell
2015-09-30 23:41 ` Tom Harding
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=87h9msiu8w.fsf@rustcorp.com.au \
--to=rusty@rustcorp$(echo .)com.au \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=tier.nolan@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