Matt Corallo [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2021-02-22 📝 Original message:Hmm, indeed, I may have ...
📅 Original date posted:2021-02-22
📝 Original message:Hmm, indeed, I may have missed that you can skip the headers issues by not persisting them, though there are other follow-on effects that are concerning and I think still make my point valid.
A node feeding you invalid headers (used to be) cause for a ban - is that information still persisted? More importantly, nodes on both sides of the fork need to find each other. There’s not a great way to do that without forking the address database, DNS seeds and defining a new protocol magic.
Matt
> On Feb 22, 2021, at 00:16, Anthony Towns <aj at erisian.com.au> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 19, 2021 at 12:48:00PM -0500, Matt Corallo via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>> It was pointed out to me that this discussion is largely moot as the
>> software complexity for Bitcoin Core to ship an option like this is likely
>> not practical/what people would wish to see.
>> Bitcoin Core does not have infrastructure to handle switching consensus
>> rules with the same datadir - after running with uasf=true for some time,
>> valid blocks will be marked as invalid,
>
> I don't think this is true? With the current proposed bip8 code,
> lockinontimeout=true will cause headers to be marked as invalid, and
> won't process the block further. If a node running lockinontimeout=true
> accepts the header, then it will apply the same consensus rules as a
> lockinontimeout=false node.
>
> I don't think an invalid header will be added to the block index at all,
> so a node restart should always cleanly allow it to be reconsidered.
>
> The test case in
>
> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19573/commits/bd8517135fc839c3332fea4d9c8373b94c8c9de8
>
> tests that a node that had rejected a chain due to lockinontimeout=true
> will reorg to that chain after being restarted as a byproduct of the way
> it tests different cases (the nodes set a new startheight, but retain
> their lockinontimeout settings).
>
>
> (I think with the current bip8 code, if you switch from
> lockinontimeout=false to lockinontimeout=true and the tip of the current
> most work chain is after the timeoutheight and did not lockin, then you
> will continue following that chain until a taproot-invalid transaction
> is inclued, rather than immediately reorging to a shorter chain that
> complies with the lockinontimeout=true rules)
>
> Cheers,
> aj
>
📝 Original message:Hmm, indeed, I may have missed that you can skip the headers issues by not persisting them, though there are other follow-on effects that are concerning and I think still make my point valid.
A node feeding you invalid headers (used to be) cause for a ban - is that information still persisted? More importantly, nodes on both sides of the fork need to find each other. There’s not a great way to do that without forking the address database, DNS seeds and defining a new protocol magic.
Matt
> On Feb 22, 2021, at 00:16, Anthony Towns <aj at erisian.com.au> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 19, 2021 at 12:48:00PM -0500, Matt Corallo via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>> It was pointed out to me that this discussion is largely moot as the
>> software complexity for Bitcoin Core to ship an option like this is likely
>> not practical/what people would wish to see.
>> Bitcoin Core does not have infrastructure to handle switching consensus
>> rules with the same datadir - after running with uasf=true for some time,
>> valid blocks will be marked as invalid,
>
> I don't think this is true? With the current proposed bip8 code,
> lockinontimeout=true will cause headers to be marked as invalid, and
> won't process the block further. If a node running lockinontimeout=true
> accepts the header, then it will apply the same consensus rules as a
> lockinontimeout=false node.
>
> I don't think an invalid header will be added to the block index at all,
> so a node restart should always cleanly allow it to be reconsidered.
>
> The test case in
>
> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19573/commits/bd8517135fc839c3332fea4d9c8373b94c8c9de8
>
> tests that a node that had rejected a chain due to lockinontimeout=true
> will reorg to that chain after being restarted as a byproduct of the way
> it tests different cases (the nodes set a new startheight, but retain
> their lockinontimeout settings).
>
>
> (I think with the current bip8 code, if you switch from
> lockinontimeout=false to lockinontimeout=true and the tip of the current
> most work chain is after the timeoutheight and did not lockin, then you
> will continue following that chain until a taproot-invalid transaction
> is inclued, rather than immediately reorging to a shorter chain that
> complies with the lockinontimeout=true rules)
>
> Cheers,
> aj
>