From: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail•com>
To: Gregory Maxwell <greg@xiph•org>
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Hardfork bit BIP
Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2016 17:15:41 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CABsx9T1AdWPAtGHkhMAGtnWtthE+oienUBm0iXEfUG05S6ko-Q@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAAS2fgT_f858GFVY9RAN1skd8_9Q_T1ZFoUXCQiC3o3B+z4oXw@mail.gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1375 bytes --]
It is always possible I'm being dense, but I still don't understand how
this proposal makes a chain-forking situation better for anybody.
If there are SPV clients that don't pay attention to versions in block
headers, then setting the block version negative doesn't directly help
them, they will ignore it in any case.
If the worry is full nodes that are not upgraded, then a block with a
negative version number will, indeed, fork them off the the chain, in
exactly the same way a block with new hard-forking consensus rules would.
And with the same consequences (if there is any hashpower not paying
attention, then a worthless minority chain might continue on with the old
rules).
If the worry is not-upgraded SPV clients connecting to the old,
not-upgraded full nodes, I don't see how this proposed BIP helps.
I think a much better idea than this proposed BIP would be a BIP that
recommends that SPV clients to pay attention to block version numbers in
the headers that they download, and warn if there is a soft OR hard fork
that they don't know about.
It is also a very good idea for SPV clients to pay attention to timestamps
in the block headers that the receive, and to warn if blocks were generated
either much slower or faster than statistically likely. Doing that (as
Bitcoin Core already does) will mitigate Sybil attacks in general.
--
--
Gavin Andresen
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1711 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-02-04 22:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-02-04 17:14 jl2012
2016-02-04 17:36 ` Gavin Andresen
2016-02-04 17:56 ` jl2012
2016-02-04 18:00 ` Bryan Bishop
2016-02-04 18:24 ` Tier Nolan
2016-02-04 18:19 ` Peter Todd
2016-02-04 18:29 ` Luke Dashjr
2016-02-05 10:20 ` Jorge Timón
2016-02-04 19:36 ` Gregory Maxwell
2016-02-04 22:15 ` Gavin Andresen [this message]
2016-02-05 9:58 ` Jorge Timón
2016-02-07 19:27 ` jl2012
2016-02-07 20:20 ` Gavin
2016-02-08 2:44 ` Anthony Towns
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=CABsx9T1AdWPAtGHkhMAGtnWtthE+oienUBm0iXEfUG05S6ko-Q@mail.gmail.com \
--to=gavinandresen@gmail$(echo .)com \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=greg@xiph$(echo .)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