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 E29F51962 for ; Mon, 28 Sep 2015 12:20:25 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-pa0-f51.google.com (mail-pa0-f51.google.com [209.85.220.51]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4195E1C4 for ; Mon, 28 Sep 2015 12:20:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: by padhy16 with SMTP id hy16so173493967pad.1 for ; Mon, 28 Sep 2015 05:20:25 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=user-agent:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:subject:from:date:to:cc:message-id; bh=ceEVpOOymSof8aHPvAC2WYbIaOL6xz4YfeE5kOwuFAg=; b=d6D1Q+jLN3MdKY+CARqXnqI7Asl3Z5QrumxwRYufeumu/7ymPpSrlJeBxvQHzIKqdV Ao/D/G92mAQKyfUhWqgfTwyq0MtzPSC/XKYjmJnkkzng6yEv3s6DfReb39aQjNBFjZdT 4iDIZWQCczHc6OidXt7IhZ/VKAMztTp5r+GkC6LkKRkhSfdAxgovYJiZWpfhg4pbbg3R BbMjiVj2wCi9t/SQezz8lffOKsI1EvkGRgHVGbJ/QLqMB6iMjZA615z5u1J5hBPQxnQQ +pTq5sOr6n9SJSosHfydJ9JOO8prVFhge3/SdVyR33aZyipbUzPZlc7Pk0I1S7E6NCmq IFnQ== X-Received: by 10.66.121.195 with SMTP id lm3mr22857270pab.84.1443442824979; Mon, 28 Sep 2015 05:20:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.100] (cpe-76-167-237-202.san.res.rr.com. [76.167.237.202]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id fu4sm19138353pbb.59.2015.09.28.05.20.24 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 28 Sep 2015 05:20:24 -0700 (PDT) User-Agent: K-9 Mail for Android In-Reply-To: References: <20150927185031.GA20599@savin.petertodd.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----FDFLLDMMV4R1M3Y1PXVM8C9X38HAPL" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: Eric Lombrozo Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2015 05:20:31 -0700 To: Mike Hearn , Mike Hearn via bitcoin-dev , Adam Back Message-ID: <4965E9A0-0FF1-4A3F-9165-A21AF976E229@gmail.com> X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW 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] Let's deploy BIP65 CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY! 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: Mon, 28 Sep 2015 12:20:26 -0000 ------FDFLLDMMV4R1M3Y1PXVM8C9X38HAPL Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Perhaps Adam won't go into the rationale...but I think it is important we clarify this. For better or worse, the only "voting" system available to Bitcoin that cannot be trivially attacked is hashing power. Soft forks are essentially miner-enforced rule changes...rules they could have decided to enforce without the consensus of anyone else. For instance, as far as old nodes are concerned, a p2sh output can be redeemed by a simple preimage of the hash...with no signatures. The point, however, is that as long as the majority of hashpower enforces the new rule, such attempts to redeem the output will never end up on the blockchain. Therefore, transactions that attempt to redeem the output with a simple preimage are as good as invalid...and effectively have become invalid. I concede that this mechanism has some issues. Moreover, I agree that it is important that the Bitcoin community be aware of these things. I've been proposing making these rule changes explicit in the BIPs (https://github.com/CodeShark/bips/blob/BIP_Classification/bip-layers.mediawiki). I believe it is important that people weigh in on such rule changes. However, the above stated mechanism does not fall under the definition of "hard fork" we've come to accept. Go ahead and object to soft forks...but at least try not to make arguments based on changing the definitions of terms we all generally agree upon. - Eric On September 28, 2015 4:40:35 AM PDT, Mike Hearn via bitcoin-dev wrote: >> >> The rationale for soft vs hard-forks is well known, so I wont go over >them. >> > >The rationale of "backwards compatibility" is well known, yet wrong. >I've >gone over the arguments here and explained why the concept makes no >sense: > >https://medium.com/@octskyward/on-consensus-and-forks-c6a050c792e7 > >Eric - no, it's not sophisticated humour. I've been objecting to soft >forks >since this idea first appeared. > >There is no consensus. Now pick. Lose the requirement that everyone >agree >for consensus changes, and tell people you've done it. Change the spec. >Or >do nothing. > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >_______________________________________________ >bitcoin-dev mailing list >bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org >https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. ------FDFLLDMMV4R1M3Y1PXVM8C9X38HAPL Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Perhaps Adam won't go into the rationale...but I think it is important we clarify this.

For better or worse, the only "voting" system available to Bitcoin that cannot be trivially attacked is hashing power. Soft forks are essentially miner-enforced rule changes...rules they could have decided to enforce without the consensus of anyone else. For instance, as far as old nodes are concerned, a p2sh output can be redeemed by a simple preimage of the hash...with no signatures. The point, however, is that as long as the majority of hashpower enforces the new rule, such attempts to redeem the output will never end up on the blockchain. Therefore, transactions that attempt to redeem the output with a simple preimage are as good as invalid...and effectively have become invalid.

I concede that this mechanism has some issues. Moreover, I agree that it is important that the Bitcoin community be aware of these things. I've been proposing making these rule changes explicit in the BIPs (https://github.com/CodeShark/bips/blob/BIP_Classification/bip-layers.mediawiki). I believe it is important that people weigh in on such rule changes. However, the above stated mechanism does not fall under the definition of "hard fork" we've come to accept.

Go ahead and object to soft forks...but at least try not to make arguments based on changing the definitions of terms we all generally agree upon.

- Eric

On September 28, 2015 4:40:35 AM PDT, Mike Hearn via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
The rationale for soft vs hard-forks is well known, so I wont go over them.

The rationale of "backwards compatibility" is well known, yet wrong. I've gone over the arguments here and explained why the concept makes no sense:


Eric - no, it's not sophisticated humour. I've been objecting to soft forks since this idea first appeared.

There is no consensus. Now pick. Lose the requirement that everyone agree for consensus changes, and tell people you've done it. Change the spec. Or do nothing.


bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. ------FDFLLDMMV4R1M3Y1PXVM8C9X38HAPL--