public inbox for bitcoindev@googlegroups.com
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Justus Ranvier <justus@openbitcoinprivacyproject.org>
To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Compatibility requirements for hard or soft forks
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2015 16:12:29 -0600	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <5637DFCD.1010009@openbitcoinprivacyproject.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CABsx9T3w-=bqbfmG=gVxJ8SQZCoEXA7vQbFD+kC2CH36bd=xPw@mail.gmail.com>


[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1241 bytes --]

On 02/11/15 14:33, Gavin Andresen via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> I like those guidelines, although I'm sure there may be lots of arguing
> over what fits under "protects the integrity of the network" or what
> constitutes "reasonable notice" (publish a BIP at least 30 days before
> rolling out a change? 60 days? a year?)

If Bitcoin were perfect. then it would be the case that any transaction
that was valid at the time it was signed would always remain valid until
spent regardless of any protocol changes which occurred in the interim.

Certainly, that property, if it was possible to achieve, would give
Bitcoin maximum possible utility compared to alternative properties.

There are cases in which that guarantee can be met, and there are some
pathological cases where it can not be met.

It's not possible to know if the pathological cases are actually a real
problem in practice, because the possible existence of unbroadcast
transactions which would trigger them is unknowable.

A possible lazy/optimistic strategy is to implement as much
non-pathological backward compatibility as possible, and treat unhandled
cases as outstanding bugs whose resolution is deferred unless and until
they are actually triggered.

[-- Attachment #1.2: 0xEAD9E623.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-keys, Size: 18729 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 801 bytes --]

  reply	other threads:[~2015-11-02 22:19 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-10-28 14:06 [bitcoin-dev] Compatibility requirements for hard or soft forks Gavin Andresen
2015-10-31  3:43 ` Rusty Russell
2015-11-01 14:36   ` Justus Ranvier
2015-11-01 17:28 ` jl2012
2015-11-01 23:46   ` Tier Nolan
2015-11-02  0:23     ` Justus Ranvier
2015-11-02  0:33       ` Luke Dashjr
2015-11-02  1:30       ` Tier Nolan
2015-11-02  4:15         ` Justus Ranvier
2015-11-02  6:12         ` Justus Ranvier
2015-11-02 20:33     ` Gavin Andresen
2015-11-02 22:12       ` Justus Ranvier [this message]
2015-11-03  5:32       ` jl2012

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=5637DFCD.1010009@openbitcoinprivacyproject.org \
    --to=justus@openbitcoinprivacyproject.org \
    --cc=bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org \
    /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