Gavin Andresen [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2015-12-04 📝 Original message:Overall, good idea. Is ...

📅 Original date posted:2015-12-04
📝 Original message:Overall, good idea.

Is there a write-up somewhere describing in detail the 'accidental selfish
mining' problem that this mitigates? I think a link in the BIP to a fuller
description of the problem and how validation-skipping makes it go away
would be helpful.

RE: which bit to use: the draft versionbits BIP and BIP101 use bit 30; to
avoid confusion, I think it would be better to use bit 0.

I agree with Jannes Faber, behavior with respect to SPV clients should be
to only tell them about fully validated headers. And I also agree that
immediately relaying full-proof-of-work blocks before validation (with an
indication that they haven't been fully validated) is a good idea, but that
discussion didn't reach consensus when I brought it up two years ago (
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/3580).


--
--
Gavin Andresen
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20151204/ad61bf07/attachment.html>;