Re: [bitcoin-dev] hypothetical: Could soft-forks be prevented?

From: Dan Libby <dan@osc•co.cr>
To: Andrew Quentson <andrewquentson@gmail•com>,
	Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
	<bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] hypothetical: Could soft-forks be prevented?
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2017 13:15:36 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <a4ed81de-68ed-1c72-2302-139a88ee886f@osc.co.cr> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CADSvpf7sC-Rh0qoGKgagQV7Mo_BV6ymeadgfMzJ_oXPCTyJ6Mw@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks for this link.  From my reading though, it seems that only
soft-forks that attempt to freeze funds are problematic on ethereum.

From the article:
> The soft fork creates a new and fundamentally different class of 
> transactions in contrast with those that currently exist within the 
> protocol. Currently, transactions either complete successfully and
> cause a state transition, or run into an exception, in which case
> state is reverted but the maximum possible gas is still charged. With
> the soft fork, transactions which interact with a DAO will not fit
> within these two classes: they will fail execution but no gas will be
> charged. This must inevitably be the case in any soft fork that aims
> to freeze the stolen funds;

So in the general case ethereum can still soft-fork I think...

On 09/15/2017 04:19 AM, Andrew Quentson wrote:
> From my understanding, the blockchain can be designed in such a way as
> to make soft-forks be impossible or at least impractical due to attack
> vectors.
> 
> http://hackingdistributed.com/2016/06/28/ethereum-soft-fork-dos-vector/
> 
> Ethereum, for example, can't soft-fork. They have to always hardfork. 
> 
> On 13 September 2017 at 10:50, Dan Libby via bitcoin-dev
> <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
> <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>> wrote:
> 
>     Hi, I am interested in the possibility of a cryptocurrency software
>     (future bitcoin or a future altcoin) that strives to have immutable
>     consensus rules.
> 
>     The goal of such a cryptocurrency would not be to have the latest and
>     greatest tech, but rather to be a long-term store of value and to offer
>     investors great certainty and predictability... something that markets
>     tend to like.  And of course, zero consensus rule changes also means
>     less chance of new bugs and attack surface remains the same, which is
>     good for security.
> 
>     Of course, hard-forks are always possible.  But that is a clear split
>     and something that people must opt into.  Each party has to make a
>     choice, and inertia is on the side of the status quo.  Whereas
>     soft-forks sort of drag people along with them, even those who oppose
>     the changes and never upgrade.  In my view, that is problematic,
>     especially for a coin with permanent consensus rule immutability as a
>     goal/ethic.
> 
>     As I understand it, bitcoin soft-forks always rely on anyone-can-spend
>     transactions.  If those were removed, would it effectively prevent
>     soft-forks, or are there other possible mechanisms?  How important are
>     any-one-can spend tx for other uses?
> 
>     More generally, do you think it is possible to programmatically
>     avoid/ban soft-forks, and if so, how would you go about it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>     _______________________________________________
>     bitcoin-dev mailing list
>     bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
>     <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
>     https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>     <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>
> 
> 

-- 
Dan Libby

Open Source Consulting S.A.
Santa Ana, Costa Rica
http://osc.co.cr
phone: 011 506 2204 7018
Fax: 011 506 2223 7359