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 10B5EFF for ; Mon, 17 Aug 2015 21:42:42 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail.bluematt.me (mail.bluematt.me [192.241.179.72]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A72681B5 for ; Mon, 17 Aug 2015 21:42:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [172.17.0.1] (gw.vpn.bluematt.me [162.243.132.6]) by mail.bluematt.me (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 793E857538 for ; Mon, 17 Aug 2015 21:42:38 +0000 (UTC) To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org References: <55D1167B.1060107@gmail.com> From: Matt Corallo X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110 Message-ID: <55D25545.3030406@mattcorallo.com> Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2015 21:42:29 +0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin XT 0.11A 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, 17 Aug 2015 21:42:42 -0000 On 08/16/15 23:22, Andrew LeCody via bitcoin-dev wrote: > Cam, your scenario makes no sense. > >> 1. Spoil the ballot. Have Bitcoin Core propagate the Bitcoin XT version > string. >> 2. Encourage all miners to false vote for the Bitcoin XT fork. > > This would obliterate any confidence in Bitcoin Core. I seriously doubt > anyone would actually be ok with a pull request implementing this. Bitcoin Core doesnt have to do this. It is rational if you have >25% of hash power (or if you believe 25% of hash power is doing this) to do this. If a 75% hardfork target is reached, and >25% of the hashpower doesnt allow the hardfork, and the hardfork is strictly more permissive than the original (ie it is essentially a reverse softfork - there are no previously valid blocks which are not still valid), then the miners who voted for the fork would be constantly generating blocks which are soft-forked-out by the >25% and non-supporting miners. I believe this was pointed out to the Bitcoin XT folks weeks ago, but apparently did not sway the decision to use 75% and a (as far as I can tell?) strictly more permissive hardfork. Matt