Eric Voskuil [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2016-11-15 📝 Original message:Actually this does nothing ...
📅 Original date posted:2016-11-15
📝 Original message: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> 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> 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> 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), 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> 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
>>
📝 Original message: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> 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> 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> 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), 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> 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
>>