Peter Todd [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2015-09-28 📝 Original message:On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at ...

📅 Original date posted:2015-09-28
📝 Original message:On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 09:01:02AM -0400, Gavin Andresen wrote:
> I think three things need to happen:
>
> 1) Stop pretending that "everyone must agree to make consensus rule
> changes." "Rough consensus" is what we've always gone with, and is good
> enough.
>
> 2) Mr. Todd (or somebody) needs to write up a risk/benefit security
> tradeoff analysis doo-hickey document and publish it. I'm reasonably
> confident that the risks to SPV nodes can be mitigated (e.g. by deploying
> mempool-only first, before the soft fork rolls out), but as somebody who
> has only been moderately paying attention, BETTER COMMUNICATION is needed.
> What should SPV wallet authors be doing right now, if anything? Once the
> soft fork starts to roll out or activates, what do miners need to be aware
> of? SPV wallet authors?

Do you have such a document for your BIP101? That would save me a lot of
time, and the need for that kind of document is significantly higher
with BIP101 anyway.


Re: mempool, CLTV-using transactions are non-standard and are not
relayed in all Bitcoin Core releases. (see my pull-req #5000 -
Discourage NOPs reserved for soft-fork upgrades - for why) I believe
that meets your suggestion of deploying mempool-only first.

--
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
0000000000000000032420ad2987adc954df855f9ae10cf608e911b431f640e0
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 650 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150928/24bdf9f3/attachment.sig>;