Re: [bitcoin-dev] [BIP Proposal] Buried Deployments

From: Thomas Kerin <me@thomaskerin•io>
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 14:18:52 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <e86b5b85-591d-5342-6a75-3ebd501f1789@thomaskerin.io> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <A98BB7F2-7AE2-4D84-9F38-7E7E9D5D3210@voskuil.org>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 6616 bytes --]

BIP30 actually was given similar treatment after a reasonable amount of
time had passed.
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/main.cpp#L2392

You are also missing BIP50: 'March 2013 Chain For Post-Mortem', which
neither benefited nor improved bitcoin, but did document an event for
posterity.

This is not a hard fork. Removing ISM just means we've committed to
those soft-forks only locking into the chain we use now.

On 11/16/2016 01:58 PM, Eric Voskuil via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> This sort of statement represents one consequence of the
> aforementioned bad precedent.
>
> Are checkpoints good now? Are hard forks okay now?
>
> What is the maximum depth of a reorg allowed by this non-machine
> consensus?
>
> Shouldn't we just define a max depth so that all cruft deeper than
> that can just be discarded on a regular basis?
>
> Why are there activation heights defined by this hard fork if it's not
> possible to reorg back to them?
>
> The "BIP" is neither a Proposal (it's been decided, just documenting
> for posterity), nor an Improvement (there is no actual benefit, just
> some tidying up in the notoriously obtuse satoshi code base), nor
> Bitcoin (a hard fork defines an alt coin, so from Aug 4 forward it has
> been CoreCoin).
>
> e
>
> On Nov 16, 2016, at 5:29 AM, Jameson Lopp <jameson.lopp@gmail•com
> <mailto:jameson.lopp@gmail•com>> wrote:
>
>> Since "buried deployments" are specifically in reference to
>> historical consensus changes, I think the question is more one of
>> human consensus than machine consensus. Is there any disagreement
>> amongst Bitcoin users that BIP34 activated at block 227931, BIP65
>> activated at block 388381, and BIP66 activated at block 363725?
>> Somehow I doubt it.
>>
>> It seems to me that this change is merely cementing into place a few
>> attributes of the blockchain's history that are not in dispute.
>>
>> - Jameson
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 5:42 PM, Eric Voskuil via bitcoin-dev
>> <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
>> <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>> wrote:
>>
>>     Actually this does nothing to provide justification for this
>>     consensus rule change. It is just an attempt to deflect criticism
>>     from the fact that it is such a change.
>>
>>     e
>>
>>     > On Nov 15, 2016, at 9:45 AM, Btc Drak <btcdrak@gmail•com
>>     <mailto:btcdrak@gmail•com>> wrote:
>>     >
>>     > I think this is already covered in the BIP text:-
>>     >
>>     > "As of November 2016, the most recent of these changes (BIP 65,
>>     > enforced since December 2015) has nearly 50,000 blocks built on
>>     top of
>>     > it. The occurrence of such a reorg that would cause the activating
>>     > block to be disconnected would raise fundamental concerns about the
>>     > security assumptions of Bitcoin, a far bigger issue than any
>>     > non-backwards compatible change.
>>     >
>>     > So while this proposal could theoretically result in a consensus
>>     > split, it is extremely unlikely, and in particular any such
>>     > circumstances would be sufficiently damaging to the Bitcoin
>>     network to
>>     > dwarf any concerns about the effects of this proposed change."
>>     >
>>     >
>>     > On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 6:47 PM, Eric Voskuil via bitcoin-dev
>>     > <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
>>     <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>> wrote:
>>     >> NACK
>>     >>
>>     >> Horrible precedent (hardcoding rule changes based on the
>>     assumption that
>>     >> large forks indicate a catastrophic failure), extremely poor
>>     process
>>     >> (already shipped, now the discussion), and not even a material
>>     performance
>>     >> optimization (the checks are avoidable once activated until a
>>     sufficiently
>>     >> deep reorg deactivates them).
>>     >>
>>     >> e
>>     >>
>>     >> On Nov 14, 2016, at 10:17 AM, Suhas Daftuar via bitcoin-dev
>>     >> <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
>>     <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>> wrote:
>>     >>
>>     >> Hi,
>>     >>
>>     >> Recently Bitcoin Core merged a simplification to the consensus
>>     rules
>>     >> surrounding deployment of BIPs 34, 66, and 65
>>     >> (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8391
>>     <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8391>), and though the
>>     change is a
>>     >> minor one, I thought it was worth documenting the rationale in
>>     a BIP for
>>     >> posterity.
>>     >>
>>     >> Here's the abstract:
>>     >>
>>     >> Prior soft forks (BIP 34, BIP 65, and BIP 66) were activated
>>     via miner
>>     >> signaling in block version numbers. Now that the chain has
>>     long since passed
>>     >> the blocks at which those consensus rules have triggered, we
>>     can (as a
>>     >> simplification and optimization) replace the trigger mechanism
>>     by caching
>>     >> the block heights at which those consensus rules became enforced.
>>     >>
>>     >> The full draft can be found here:
>>     >>
>>     >>
>>     https://github.com/sdaftuar/bips/blob/buried-deployments/bip-buried-deployments.mediawiki
>>     <https://github.com/sdaftuar/bips/blob/buried-deployments/bip-buried-deployments.mediawiki>
>>     >>
>>     >> _______________________________________________
>>     >> 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>
>>     >>
>>     >>
>>     >> _______________________________________________
>>     >> 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>
>>     >>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     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>
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 12178 bytes --]