public inbox for bitcoindev@googlegroups.com
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Bob McElrath <bob_bitcoin@mcelrath.org>
To: Jonathan Toomim <j@toom.im>
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Increasing the blocksize as a (generalized) softfork.
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2015 00:04:42 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20151231000442.GK18200@mcelrath.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <16BFC301-58C1-49F9-B2E5-A2C09C82A8CA@toom.im>

Jonathan Toomim [j@toom.im] wrote:
> 
> The generalized softfork method has the advantage of being merge-mined

That's an over-generalization.  There are two kinds of soft-forks WRT mining,
those which:

1. involve new validation rules by data-hiding from non-upgraded modes
    (e.g. extension blocks, generalized softfork)
2. involve NO new validation logic (e.g. P2SH)

Miners which are not validating transactions *should* be deprived of revenue,
because their role is transaction validation, not simply brute forcing sha256d.

So I'm very strongly against this "generalized softfork" idea -- I also don't
see how upgraded nodes and non-upgraded nodes can possibly end up with the same
UTXO set.

> > Once a chain is seen to be 6 or more blocks ahead of my chain tip, we should
> > enter "zombie mode" and refuse to mine or relay
> 
> I like this method. However, it does have the problem of being voluntary. If
> nodes don't upgrade to a version that has the latent zombie gene long before a
> fork, then it does nothing.

Which is why it should be put into core long before forks.  ;-)

--
Cheers, Bob McElrath

"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong."
    -- H. L. Mencken 



  parent reply	other threads:[~2015-12-31  0:04 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-12-20 10:56 [bitcoin-dev] Increasing the blocksize as a (generalized) softfork joe2015
2015-12-20 15:22 ` joe2015
2015-12-20 15:50 ` Tier Nolan
2015-12-20 18:17 ` Bryan Bishop
2015-12-21  3:04   ` joe2015
2015-12-21  4:23 ` jl2012
2015-12-21  4:41   ` joe2015
2015-12-30 19:00     ` Bob McElrath
2015-12-30 23:49       ` Jonathan Toomim
2015-12-30 23:56         ` Jonathan Toomim
2015-12-31  0:04         ` Bob McElrath [this message]
2015-12-31  4:39           ` joe2015
2015-12-31 10:39             ` David Chan
2015-12-31 11:32               ` joe2015
2016-01-04 21:53 ` Luke Dashjr
2015-12-20 17:21 joe2015
2015-12-21  3:39 ` Jeff Garzik
2015-12-21  3:58   ` joe2015

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=20151231000442.GK18200@mcelrath.org \
    --to=bob_bitcoin@mcelrath.org \
    --cc=bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=j@toom.im \
    /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