public inbox for bitcoindev@googlegroups.com
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: zooko <zooko@zooko.com>
To: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@bitpay.com>
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>,
	Greg Troxel <gdt@work.lexort.com>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Linux packaging letter
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 19:32:52 +0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130724153251.GE1009@zooko.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAJHLa0OrYZbPCBfuuLLj4rCj45WvEgqaH5YS=Zr1i9i+m6hPTg@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 09:52:33AM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> 
> I'm working on a more digestable alternative:
> https://gist.github.com/jgarzik/6065679

Hi Jeff! Thanks for working on it. Even if that letter
(https://gist.github.com/jgarzik/6065679) doesn't supplant
https://docs.google.com/a/leastauthority.com/document/d/1naenR6N6fMWSpHM0f4jpQhYBEkCEQDbLBs8AXC19Y-o/edit#heading=h.i7tz3gqh65mi
as a message-to-packagers, it looks like it will still turn out to be a useful
text.

My first question about it is this part:

"""
 Make a mistake, lose $1 billion

The consequences of bitcoin consensus failure are very high, comparable to avionics or medical device software. As of this writing, over $1 billion of value depends on bitcoin software being able to reliably achieve consensus over the worldwide Internet. This is the digital equivalent of Fort Knox: consensus must be achieved, or bitcoin has no value.
"""

This makes it sound like if, for example, Debian were to link bitcoind to the
system leveldb, and then upgrade the system leveldb to fix a bug that affects
bitcoind, that this would spell the end of Bitcoin.

I hope that's not true!

I'd like to try to be more specific about two things:

1. What is the behavior that a dependency or a patch could cause that would be
problematic? I liked what Luke-Jr said earlier in this thread -- that in some
cases a bitcoin node (i.e. a bitcoind process) needs certain bugs or
limitations in order to maintain consensus with other bitcoin nodes. Maybe you
could use a statement like that, without attempting to explain in *what* cases
that applies.

2. What is the consequence if this goes wrong? This is something I don't
understand as well. I think the answer is:

   2.a. All bitcoin nodes which encounter one of these cases and are
        differently-buggy than the upstream bitcoind form their own consensus,
        causing a blockchain fork.

   2.b. There is a risk of double-spending attacks.

   2.c. The process for healing a blockchain fork is not very smooth or
        well-understood.

Regards,

Zooko



  reply	other threads:[~2013-07-24 15:33 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2013-07-23 20:01 [Bitcoin-development] Linux packaging letter Mike Hearn
2013-07-23 20:14 ` Gregory Maxwell
2013-07-23 20:32   ` Mike Hearn
2013-07-23 20:50     ` Gregory Maxwell
2013-07-28 18:21       ` John Dillon
2013-07-23 22:02 ` Scott Howard
2013-07-23 22:26   ` Luke-Jr
2013-07-24  3:00     ` Scott Howard
2013-07-24  1:45   ` Douglas Huff
2013-07-24  2:27     ` Scott Howard
2013-07-24  3:54     ` [Bitcoin-development] Endianness (was: Linux packaging letter) Wendell
2013-07-24  4:03       ` Luke-Jr
2013-07-24  4:07       ` Gregory Maxwell
2013-07-24  4:09         ` Gregory Maxwell
2013-07-23 22:33 ` [Bitcoin-development] Linux packaging letter Pieter Wuille
2013-07-23 23:23 ` Greg Troxel
2013-07-23 23:45   ` Luke-Jr
2013-07-24  0:50   ` Gregory Maxwell
2013-07-24  2:35     ` zooko
2013-07-24  3:19       ` Gregory Maxwell
2013-07-24  8:28         ` Mike Hearn
2013-07-24 13:52           ` Jeff Garzik
2013-07-24 15:32             ` zooko [this message]
2013-07-24 19:35               ` Gregory Maxwell
2013-07-24 16:01           ` zooko
2013-07-27  0:45           ` Greg Troxel
2013-07-27  0:43     ` Greg Troxel

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20130724153251.GE1009@zooko.com \
    --to=zooko@zooko.com \
    --cc=bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net \
    --cc=gdt@work.lexort.com \
    --cc=jgarzik@bitpay.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox