From: "Jorge Timón" <jtimon@jtimon•cc>
To: Matt Whitlock <bip@mattwhitlock•name>
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Uniquely identifying forked chains
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2015 22:45:29 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CABm2gDoXv6Tk0KrLJoSfqVTLti9niVaPu2mfE3+0dekL0P-Xug@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <2081350.pl7B3yspcG@crushinator>
On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 10:15 PM, Matt Whitlock via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Why would you use a hash of hashes? Wouldn't it be simpler and just as effective to use either:
>
> 1) the genesis block hash, or
If it's a new chain, we're talking about a "spinoffs"
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=563972.0
> 2) the block hash of the first block in a fork?
Yes, this seems like the best solution in the schism hardfork case.
What both sides of a schism hardfork would want is to avoid hurting
bystander users who can't tell the difference between the old and the
new currency/chain.
I should extend BIP99's section on schism hardforks.
Anybody else is welcomed to propose changes to the BIP draft, just PR
to this branch:
https://github.com/jtimon/bips/tree/bip-forks
> Every block hash in a chain implicitly subsumes the genesis block hash of that chain, so there's no need to incorporate the genesis block hash again.
>
>
> On Saturday, 29 August 2015, at 1:27 am, gladoscc via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>> There has been discussion of using the genesis block hash to identify
>> chains in BIP 21 (bitcoin:// URI scheme). However, this does not allow
>> identification between blockchain forks building upon the same genesis
>> block. While many see this as undesirable, I think it is inevitable that
>> this will eventually happen at some point, and think it is best to build
>> systems redundantly.
>>
>> I propose identifying blockchains for BIP 21 and any other relevant needs
>> through:
>>
>> 1) the genesis block hash for a new chain, or
>> 2) a hash of the genesis block hash, concatenated with block hash(es) of
>> fork point(s) for a fork chain
>>
>> This would support forks, forks of forks, forks of forks of forks, etc
>> while preserving a fixed length chain identifier.
>>
>> If a user wants to specify "whatever chain is the longest with PoW", they
>> would use (1). In times where multiple chains are coexisting and being
>> actively mined, a user can use (2) to specifically identify a chain.
>>
>> Thoughts?
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-08-28 20:45 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <CAL7-sS2mrBqM7w5T8mRBFvVrCaHy1zT1YsgrHUxRBqdTFqczow@mail.gmail.com>
[not found] ` <CAL7-sS3CaHvZxUb-Q6HagHYufYnko_T4TBoFhd31rr5OxaiAEw@mail.gmail.com>
2015-08-28 15:27 ` gladoscc
2015-08-28 20:15 ` Matt Whitlock
2015-08-28 20:45 ` Jorge Timón [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=CABm2gDoXv6Tk0KrLJoSfqVTLti9niVaPu2mfE3+0dekL0P-Xug@mail.gmail.com \
--to=jtimon@jtimon$(echo .)cc \
--cc=bip@mattwhitlock$(echo .)name \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
/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