odinn [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2015-07-04 📝 Original message:-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED ...
📅 Original date posted:2015-07-04
📝 Original message:-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Raystonn,
How would an average SPV wallet user know anything about this at all?
They might not know it is even happening, or if they have some idea
that something is wrong, then they wouldn't know what to do.
Say you use Electrum, some older version like 1.9. Electrum's current
version is 2.3.3. Or say you use a slightly older version like 2.2.
In any event, how is an end user possibly going to know which of
Electrum's (or any other SPV wallet's) versions are "the minimum
required for safety?" (so as to know they would need to upgrade
because problems)? Is this just something where it's really down to
community announcements on websites and reddits and the like?
On 07/03/2015 10:17 PM, Raystonn wrote:
> SPV clients are at risk in scenarios like this. We should encourage
> them to check node versions against the minimum required for
> safety. This check should be upgraded when new BIPs go into effect.
> It won't help against malicious nodes. But it will help in cases
> such as today's.
>
> On 3 Jul 2015 8:17 pm, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jul 4, 2015 at 3:11 AM, Raystonn <raystonn at hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>> We need some analysis on why this has happened. It appears the
> larger hashrate is violating BIP66. Thus it appears the network
> is rejecting this BIP, though potentially accidentally. If this is
> an accident, how is such a large portion of hashrate forking, and
> what can we do to avoid this in the future?
>
> A near majority of the hashrate on the network appears to be SPV
> mining.
>
> Btcnuggets was a non-upgraded miner that produced an invalid block
> after the lock in and f2pool and antpool have been extending it.
> Fortunately their extension contains no transactions (an artifact
> of SPV mining). Obviously a complete understanding is going to
> take some time; though I would note that this general failure mode
> was one we were aware of and is part of the reason the treshold is
> so high.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing
> list bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
- --
http://abis.io ~
"a protocol concept to enable decentralization
and expansion of a giving economy, and a new social good"
https://keybase.io/odinn
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJVl3HCAAoJEGxwq/inSG8CXXIH/0s8o09UwRld+upM2pdAovMu
1SBCg/JeK3jXvqJDjyAbYe22WbnW8ykrZdujo1MFGuoZWbgrrSXo581lpyCy3O6c
SZYfAJee4eILzBl4MOwiAImcJBE3zOBCKT/DDaD1Qc8XvX6ReWJFYZgHsp/5F/BL
VlwVV9505V3X2G+y+3XOPwLggCu6m0MkRgeUjNTwdn+j6Yg6/NjJbS+YDDgjZ9dM
y3+uGA9Ek0bCLwjceUh8xAEwb+QUJrJgrNIo1vjuy+NRl18s1rUSx1YGTRkAD8eV
spdGTmXClx/phNnsR072hsqYRSj0CzhV8cQnEAh3ZmB4/RMhcxeNDmGw4rFNwD4=
=71aR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
📝 Original message:-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Raystonn,
How would an average SPV wallet user know anything about this at all?
They might not know it is even happening, or if they have some idea
that something is wrong, then they wouldn't know what to do.
Say you use Electrum, some older version like 1.9. Electrum's current
version is 2.3.3. Or say you use a slightly older version like 2.2.
In any event, how is an end user possibly going to know which of
Electrum's (or any other SPV wallet's) versions are "the minimum
required for safety?" (so as to know they would need to upgrade
because problems)? Is this just something where it's really down to
community announcements on websites and reddits and the like?
On 07/03/2015 10:17 PM, Raystonn wrote:
> SPV clients are at risk in scenarios like this. We should encourage
> them to check node versions against the minimum required for
> safety. This check should be upgraded when new BIPs go into effect.
> It won't help against malicious nodes. But it will help in cases
> such as today's.
>
> On 3 Jul 2015 8:17 pm, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jul 4, 2015 at 3:11 AM, Raystonn <raystonn at hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>> We need some analysis on why this has happened. It appears the
> larger hashrate is violating BIP66. Thus it appears the network
> is rejecting this BIP, though potentially accidentally. If this is
> an accident, how is such a large portion of hashrate forking, and
> what can we do to avoid this in the future?
>
> A near majority of the hashrate on the network appears to be SPV
> mining.
>
> Btcnuggets was a non-upgraded miner that produced an invalid block
> after the lock in and f2pool and antpool have been extending it.
> Fortunately their extension contains no transactions (an artifact
> of SPV mining). Obviously a complete understanding is going to
> take some time; though I would note that this general failure mode
> was one we were aware of and is part of the reason the treshold is
> so high.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing
> list bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
- --
http://abis.io ~
"a protocol concept to enable decentralization
and expansion of a giving economy, and a new social good"
https://keybase.io/odinn
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJVl3HCAAoJEGxwq/inSG8CXXIH/0s8o09UwRld+upM2pdAovMu
1SBCg/JeK3jXvqJDjyAbYe22WbnW8ykrZdujo1MFGuoZWbgrrSXo581lpyCy3O6c
SZYfAJee4eILzBl4MOwiAImcJBE3zOBCKT/DDaD1Qc8XvX6ReWJFYZgHsp/5F/BL
VlwVV9505V3X2G+y+3XOPwLggCu6m0MkRgeUjNTwdn+j6Yg6/NjJbS+YDDgjZ9dM
y3+uGA9Ek0bCLwjceUh8xAEwb+QUJrJgrNIo1vjuy+NRl18s1rUSx1YGTRkAD8eV
spdGTmXClx/phNnsR072hsqYRSj0CzhV8cQnEAh3ZmB4/RMhcxeNDmGw4rFNwD4=
=71aR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----