Rusty Russell [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2015-09-30 📝 Original message:Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell ...
📅 Original date posted:2015-09-30
📝 Original message:Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> writes:
> I can, however, argue it the other way (and probably have in the
> past): The bit is easily checked by thin clients, so thin clients
> could use it to reject potentially ill-fated blocks from non-upgraded
> miners post switch (which otherwise they couldn't reject without
> inspecting the whole thing). This is an improvement over not forcing
> the bit, and it's why I was previously in favor of the way the
> versions were enforced. But, experience has played out other ways,
> and thin clients have not done anything useful with the version
> numbers.
>
> A middle ground might be to require setting the bit for a period of
> time after rule enforcing begins, but don't enforce the bit, just
> enforce validity of the block under new rules. Thus a thin client
> could treat these blocks with increased skepticism.
Introducing this later would trigger warnings on older clients, who
would consider the bit to represent a new soft fork :(
So if we want this middle ground, we should sew it in now, though it
adds a other state. Simplest is to have miners keep setting the bit for
another 2016 blocks. If we want to later, we can make this a consensus
rule.
"Bitcoin is hard, let's go shopping!" "With Bitcoin!" "..."
Rusty.
📝 Original message:Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> writes:
> I can, however, argue it the other way (and probably have in the
> past): The bit is easily checked by thin clients, so thin clients
> could use it to reject potentially ill-fated blocks from non-upgraded
> miners post switch (which otherwise they couldn't reject without
> inspecting the whole thing). This is an improvement over not forcing
> the bit, and it's why I was previously in favor of the way the
> versions were enforced. But, experience has played out other ways,
> and thin clients have not done anything useful with the version
> numbers.
>
> A middle ground might be to require setting the bit for a period of
> time after rule enforcing begins, but don't enforce the bit, just
> enforce validity of the block under new rules. Thus a thin client
> could treat these blocks with increased skepticism.
Introducing this later would trigger warnings on older clients, who
would consider the bit to represent a new soft fork :(
So if we want this middle ground, we should sew it in now, though it
adds a other state. Simplest is to have miners keep setting the bit for
another 2016 blocks. If we want to later, we can make this a consensus
rule.
"Bitcoin is hard, let's go shopping!" "With Bitcoin!" "..."
Rusty.