From: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail•com>
To: Eric Voskuil <eric@voskuil•org>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
<bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] [BIP Proposal] Buried Deployments
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2016 17:50:53 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAPg+sBiGwz23mm5fCKUrg7GpWwuJ=3Nf2DcN89KxG=g_Wz4vBw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <A98BB7F2-7AE2-4D84-9F38-7E7E9D5D3210@voskuil.org>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1198 bytes --]
On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 5:58 AM, Eric Voskuil via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> This sort of statement represents one consequence of the aforementioned
> bad precedent.
>
> Are checkpoints good now?
>
So far in this discussion, and in a thread that has forked off, I think 3
cases of implementation aspects have been mentioned that under certain
circumstances result in the validity of chains changing:
* Buried softforks (by simplifying the activation rules for certain rules)
* Not verifying BIP30 after BIP34 is active (since only under a SHA256^2
collision a duplicate txid can occur)
* The existence (and/or removal) of checkpoints (in one form or another).
None of these will influence the accepted main chain, however. If they ever
do, Bitcoin has far worse things to worry about (years-deep reorgs, or
SHA256 collisions).
If you were trying to point out that buried softforks are similar to
checkpoints in this regard, I agree. So are checkpoints good now? I believe
we should get rid of checkpoints because they seem to be misunderstood as a
security feature rather than as an optimization. I don't think buried
softforks have that problem.
--
Pieter
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1697 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-11-17 1:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-11-14 18:17 Suhas Daftuar
2016-11-14 18:47 ` Eric Voskuil
2016-11-15 14:42 ` Suhas Daftuar
2016-11-15 17:45 ` Btc Drak
2016-11-15 22:42 ` Eric Voskuil
2016-11-16 13:29 ` Jameson Lopp
2016-11-16 13:58 ` Eric Voskuil
2016-11-16 14:18 ` Tier Nolan
2016-11-16 14:32 ` Alex Morcos
2016-11-16 21:01 ` Peter Todd
2016-11-16 22:21 ` Eric Voskuil
2016-11-17 3:06 ` Luke Dashjr
2016-11-16 14:18 ` Thomas Kerin
2016-11-16 23:58 ` Jorge Timón
2016-11-17 0:00 ` Eric Voskuil
2016-11-17 1:24 ` Alex Morcos
2016-11-17 1:41 ` Eric Voskuil
2016-11-17 0:13 ` Eric Voskuil
2016-11-16 23:48 ` Jorge Timón
2016-11-17 1:50 ` Pieter Wuille [this message]
2016-11-17 2:16 ` Eric Voskuil
2016-11-17 2:47 ` Pieter Wuille
2016-11-17 10:10 ` Eric Voskuil
2016-11-16 14:38 ` Tom Zander
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='CAPg+sBiGwz23mm5fCKUrg7GpWwuJ=3Nf2DcN89KxG=g_Wz4vBw@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=pieter.wuille@gmail$(echo .)com \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=eric@voskuil$(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