Eric Voskuil [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2016-11-16 📝 Original message:On 11/16/2016 06:18 AM, ...
📅 Original date posted:2016-11-16
📝 Original message:On 11/16/2016 06:18 AM, Thomas Kerin wrote:
> 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
BIP30 was the resolution to a catostrophic protocol flaw that would
impact any block whether above or below the point where the rule was
applied. Applying it to all future blocks, regardless of whether there
is a reorg back to genesis, was the only option as far as I can tell. So
the comparison to an unnecessary fork is hardly apt.
> You are also missing BIP50: 'March 2013 Chain For Post-Mortem', which
> neither benefited nor improved bitcoin, but did document an event for
> posterity.
BIP50 documents the release of an "unexpected" hard fork to a large
number of users. Given that Core code is considered by some to be the
*definition* of the true protocol, this led to two "legitimate" Bitcoin
chains. Leveraging the centralized state of Bitcoin mining, the
development team was able to kill the newer chain. This was simply an
altcoin that didn't survive because people stopped using it.
Anyone can create an altcoin - the question here is specifically, why
would we want to do so in this case.
> 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.
There didn't seem to be any confusion among the implementers that it is
a hard fork.
I will correct one implication I made below. The heights in the proposal
are required in the absence of BIP34-style activation so that the soft
fork validation rules can be properly enforced at those points (whether
or not a deep reorg happens).
e
> 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 at gmail.com
>> <mailto:jameson.lopp at 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 at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>>> <mailto:bitcoin-dev at 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 at gmail.com
>>> <mailto:btcdrak at 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 at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>>> <mailto:bitcoin-dev at 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 at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>>> <mailto:bitcoin-dev at 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 at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>>> <mailto:bitcoin-dev at 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 at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>>> <mailto:bitcoin-dev at 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 at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>>> <mailto:bitcoin-dev at 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 at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 490 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20161116/e85b7728/attachment.sig>;
📝 Original message:On 11/16/2016 06:18 AM, Thomas Kerin wrote:
> 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
BIP30 was the resolution to a catostrophic protocol flaw that would
impact any block whether above or below the point where the rule was
applied. Applying it to all future blocks, regardless of whether there
is a reorg back to genesis, was the only option as far as I can tell. So
the comparison to an unnecessary fork is hardly apt.
> You are also missing BIP50: 'March 2013 Chain For Post-Mortem', which
> neither benefited nor improved bitcoin, but did document an event for
> posterity.
BIP50 documents the release of an "unexpected" hard fork to a large
number of users. Given that Core code is considered by some to be the
*definition* of the true protocol, this led to two "legitimate" Bitcoin
chains. Leveraging the centralized state of Bitcoin mining, the
development team was able to kill the newer chain. This was simply an
altcoin that didn't survive because people stopped using it.
Anyone can create an altcoin - the question here is specifically, why
would we want to do so in this case.
> 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.
There didn't seem to be any confusion among the implementers that it is
a hard fork.
I will correct one implication I made below. The heights in the proposal
are required in the absence of BIP34-style activation so that the soft
fork validation rules can be properly enforced at those points (whether
or not a deep reorg happens).
e
> 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 at gmail.com
>> <mailto:jameson.lopp at 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 at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>>> <mailto:bitcoin-dev at 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 at gmail.com
>>> <mailto:btcdrak at 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 at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>>> <mailto:bitcoin-dev at 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 at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>>> <mailto:bitcoin-dev at 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 at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>>> <mailto:bitcoin-dev at 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 at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>>> <mailto:bitcoin-dev at 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 at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>>> <mailto:bitcoin-dev at 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 at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 490 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20161116/e85b7728/attachment.sig>;