From: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail•com>
To: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp•com.au>
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: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 02:57:52 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAAS2fgTXP0j6K3sxp=HL9j2-xvO8y_VnpG+iZw9kaxmnxZQjSw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87zj04fxkw.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>
On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 2:30 AM, Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp•com.au> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Pieter and Eric pointed out that the current BIP has miners
> turning off the bit as soon as it's locked in (75% testnet / 95%
> mainnet). It's better for them to keep setting the bit until activation
> (2016 blocks later), so network adoption is visible.
>
> I'm not proposing another suggestion, though I note it for future:
> miners keep setting the bit for another 2016 blocks after activation,
> and have a consensus rule that rejects blocks without the bit. That
> would "force" upgrades on those last miners. I feel we should see how
> this works first.
Actually getting rid of the immediate bit forcing was something I
considered to be an advantage of versionbits over prior work.
Consider, where possible we carve soft fork features out from
non-standard behavior. Why do we do this? Primarily so that
non-upgraded miners are not mining invalid transactions which
immediately cause short lived forks once the soft-fork activates.
(Secondarily to protect wallets from unconfirmed TX that won't ever
confirm).
The version forcing, however, guarantees existence of the same forks
that the usage of non-standard prevented!
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.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-09-30 2:57 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 [this message]
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
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='CAAS2fgTXP0j6K3sxp=HL9j2-xvO8y_VnpG+iZw9kaxmnxZQjSw@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=gmaxwell@gmail$(echo .)com \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=pieter.wuille@gmail$(echo .)com \
--cc=rusty@rustcorp$(echo .)com.au \
/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