From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1RAb8o-00084d-M8 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 03 Oct 2011 05:32:38 +0000 X-ACL-Warn: Received: from zinan.dashjr.org ([173.242.112.54]) by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) id 1RAb8n-0002eU-9G for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 03 Oct 2011 05:32:38 +0000 Received: from ishibashi.localnet (fl-184-4-160-40.dhcp.embarqhsd.net [184.4.160.40]) (Authenticated sender: luke-jr) by zinan.dashjr.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8DD8C204031; Mon, 3 Oct 2011 05:32:28 +0000 (UTC) From: "Luke-Jr" To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2011 01:32:19 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/2.6.39-gentoo; KDE/4.6.5; x86_64; ; ) References: In-Reply-To: X-PGP-Key-Fingerprint: CE5A D56A 36CC 69FA E7D2 3558 665F C11D D53E 9583 X-PGP-Key-ID: 665FC11DD53E9583 X-PGP-Keyserver: x-hkp://subkeys.pgp.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201110030132.21646.luke@dashjr.org> X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -0.5 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain X-Headers-End: 1RAb8n-0002eU-9G Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Supermajority mining votes for valid->invalid changes. X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 05:32:38 -0000 On Monday, October 03, 2011 12:53:51 AM Gregory Maxwell wrote: > Upgraded nodes get the following rules: > (0) Never forward or mine a txn which would be invalid under the new rule. > (1) Apply old behavior before height X unconditionally. > (X set far enough in the future to get reasonable deployment by > large miners) > (2) Begin applying the new rule only after the first point in the chain > after X when none of the last Y blocks have contained an invalid > transaction under the new rules. Perhaps as a safeguard: (3) Before applying the new rule, require 50% of the last Y blocks contain a coinbase with a "I am upgraded" code (4) Until the new rule is active, include an "I am upgraded" code in every block; after it's active, this can be turned off > After the software has been released members of the bitcoin community then > begin _intentionally_ transmitting transactions which are invalid under > the new rules. (What would have been an attack under simplest deployment > plan) Why would legitimate community members ever intentionally transmit an invalid transaction? ;)