Re: [bitcoin-dev] Versionbits BIP (009) minor revision proposal.

[Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>]

Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com> writes:
> I can, however, argue it the other way (and probably have in the
> past):  The bit is easily checked by thin clients, so thin clients
> could use it to reject potentially ill-fated blocks from non-upgraded
> miners post switch (which otherwise they couldn't reject without
> inspecting the whole thing). This is an improvement over not forcing
> the bit, and it's why I was previously in favor of the way the
> versions were enforced.  But, experience has played out other ways,
> and thin clients have not done anything useful with the version
> numbers.
>
> A middle ground might be to require setting the bit for a period of
> time after rule enforcing begins, but don't enforce the bit, just
> enforce validity of the block under new rules.  Thus a thin client
> could treat these blocks with increased skepticism.

Introducing this later would trigger warnings on older clients, who
would consider the bit to represent a new soft fork :(

So if we want this middle ground, we should sew it in now, though it
adds a other state.  Simplest is to have miners keep setting the bit for
another 2016 blocks.  If we want to later, we can make this a consensus
rule.

"Bitcoin is hard, let's go shopping!"  "With Bitcoin!"  "..."
Rusty.