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 158DB11A1 for ; Thu, 31 Dec 2015 00:04:47 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mcelrath.org (moya.mcelrath.org [50.31.3.130]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 90021169 for ; Thu, 31 Dec 2015 00:04:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mcelrath.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mcelrath.org (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-9.4) with ESMTP id tBV04hFk024823 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 31 Dec 2015 00:04:43 GMT Received: (from mcelrath@localhost) by mcelrath.org (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) id tBV04hXX024822; Thu, 31 Dec 2015 00:04:43 GMT X-Authentication-Warning: mcelrath.org: mcelrath set sender to bob_bitcoin@mcelrath.org using -f Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2015 00:04:42 +0000 From: Bob McElrath To: Jonathan Toomim Message-ID: <20151231000442.GK18200@mcelrath.org> References: <1bf64a5b514d57ca37744ae5f5238149@openmailbox.org> <20151230190043.GJ18200@mcelrath.org> <16BFC301-58C1-49F9-B2E5-A2C09C82A8CA@toom.im> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <16BFC301-58C1-49F9-B2E5-A2C09C82A8CA@toom.im> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Increasing the blocksize as a (generalized) softfork. X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2015 00:04:47 -0000 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