From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8C20B88A for ; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 02:16:23 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-pg0-f48.google.com (mail-pg0-f48.google.com [74.125.83.48]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 288FD22C for ; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 02:16:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pg0-f48.google.com with SMTP id 3so85805859pgd.0 for ; Wed, 16 Nov 2016 18:16:23 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=voskuil-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=pl0kXp7azpTIKuRqY+sk7uW6BbssbnlYfAhCXNTFC7w=; b=qtRGWit8pFG0hQhb9BgEofPuE0Pth/+JfTd49SVN+V60PGQiOdGibq90HhSA1DQ6+q RfwyJ8XnvDDGvaFGrTrEPNRD3aW/wJAtN7Zuqs4YyniQae89etRBCBb4/e/SxolWKkL3 u+r0k/vyGTJ36YkEn0HLX3xzZ7EH864es3MfClXv5GUHZi+aQRsaj03gcLH02+97OlEy psgge1PMxPFx3gsi3QHskkn3wBYhRP4RJfWmuRAiAaGZXLClpOVU4O7QCjSd2SmpUVyV kNl0yuww+afOjzScOj+ToQMalT6OpYQ4lW8f6yN1YVq2ULtO7eP0BjQbprlujjAKYiPw rhHA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=pl0kXp7azpTIKuRqY+sk7uW6BbssbnlYfAhCXNTFC7w=; b=Mojrqk/MJzOk3ufVjOB9BegxzF7XnQPNt4bauJ5UCSCWZ84yOG0lSSj9wUkqb3Vltt 7lf+VO2SJBCxvMaS7WP3in8yy22vt60rCYiV9kFMaVrdv2yAZg1FcLeBuOTiIJBxP154 pW3ALnyxTx5nZjuYv8zTaDNP4ZG1PcCCipVuta8ICpUB20Nx3++AplyI/WXR5lDH6aHo pgJPf7qb5PD+86+8K8sBC0VnCp4WlCH7Qn3xQ1FoF8zlDXJtM9qNtKaxRI7c8ynkY7qa PBOm9AFQBejONzJLuX4+VbfBAFctWy43Y4CVJpGT9Z4QoLuXGUcACOw42hQ/P21I7nWv hibg== X-Gm-Message-State: ABUngvd/ft6+plJ/21kudG/lRXPZ+6RYhZGIR9R33UFcvKPDhE4xLCBCMAFyQyq0jdmpOQ== X-Received: by 10.98.73.203 with SMTP id r72mr1161091pfi.75.1479348982746; Wed, 16 Nov 2016 18:16:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?IPv6:2601:600:9000:d69e:8084:4206:2529:776d? ([2601:600:9000:d69e:8084:4206:2529:776d]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id i76sm798230pfk.89.2016.11.16.18.16.21 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 16 Nov 2016 18:16:22 -0800 (PST) To: Pieter Wuille , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion References: <33BFC318-0BB4-48DB-B5DC-08247FAC6E5A@voskuil.org> From: Eric Voskuil X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N0110 Message-ID: <0d66bf24-2ded-cd98-ec55-945e01b436d0@voskuil.org> Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2016 18:16:23 -0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="6wQsoxBDP47ItSVAlIJG3GKs5VaJiPjL9" X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM autolearn=no version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 02:20:31 +0000 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] [BIP Proposal] Buried Deployments X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 02:16:23 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --6wQsoxBDP47ItSVAlIJG3GKs5VaJiPjL9 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 11/16/2016 05:50 PM, Pieter Wuille wrote: > If you were trying to point out that buried softforks are similar to > checkpoints in this regard, I agree. Yes, that was my point. > So are checkpoints good now? > I believe we should get rid of checkpoints because they seem to be misunderstood as a security feature rather than as an optimization. Or maybe because they place control of the "true chain" in the hands of those selecting the checkpoints? It's not a great leap for the parties distributing the checkpoints to become the central authority. I recommend users of our node validate the full chain without checkpoints and from that chain select their own checkpoints and place them into config. From that point forward they can apply the optimization. Checkpoints should never be hardcoded into the source. > I don't think buried softforks have that problem. I find "buried softfork" a curious name as you are using it. You seem to be implying that this type of change is itself a softfork as opposed to a hardfork that changes the activation of a softfork. It was my understanding that the term referred to the 3 softforks that were being "buried", or the proposal, but not the burial itself. Nevertheless, this proposal shouldn't have "that problem" because it is clearly neither a security feature nor an optimization. That is the first issue that needs to be addressed. e --6wQsoxBDP47ItSVAlIJG3GKs5VaJiPjL9 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJYLRL3AAoJEDzYwH8LXOFOgnQH/jP2Mcqi+nSKsq8tCUaQprRc CyvWQbUWvIss38bsr0DxUhlijuAGwMZ9vz9AECaWMuQMyBg137FgZqMfj/hUmirB YRNBCtSJi0s5NHGrtEsyKf/IgrT6bTxpQw9p9joKREevcwoDaHnUqXyZWj8FqE0g Q4scwGiQF+WQUBpZI+Xu8A0AHYcpc4+tBEyxL71FT2naQhSU5dnO7SFBXy2dxQeB cRmov6ImaqMAUGaACyXtA2uhw6KDOLcUMClT9VEW9kzwrJwj0N1uBtpkqfDIXSgZ Ay2XQ4Iv57qi2Ggf3GyhPkn0Zxe5a638OWlaa6MxiSU76Ub8JWkPJ+aPX6z6mYU= =dyWX -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --6wQsoxBDP47ItSVAlIJG3GKs5VaJiPjL9--