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 D0EDBE69 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2018 23:57:11 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-it0-f44.google.com (mail-it0-f44.google.com [209.85.214.44]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4889E7C for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2018 23:57:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-it0-f44.google.com with SMTP id o13so17332201ito.2 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2018 15:57:11 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=voskuil-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to; bh=/LV8JmcneDKArUKqzg5VV7+ZuTUimE39/EawLy5WOyw=; b=zfS5BrAXoyDwHiN5AkggODAPcucQaH/zXe9jOfFNeVJkVPchrhRXv/R0yL+tauhlhN 5xCvum5KN4z46BB9yHso25pa+q75/JrvENLv4v+D9ANbIQjmzViPUkeQFZ3gXX785ZVu zIY8IseLOpl9WV3v1R9GWW5gI87FWPxNmwONoS3gGOvdwBGoECnad1EDEOb1yKPIgnv0 XbrxrcPFUpWxyYBDYwr0nVZw3CeUJn3Yf6cEt7QiZft4f802euqM4t4g1bU2bFD4XKkQ +ML5G0blLdyHq5wbQ/3loDJDHwbI7dknABeemdiCuxERTqencqc7u0sfjvgj8y9OvWxW cSmA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=/LV8JmcneDKArUKqzg5VV7+ZuTUimE39/EawLy5WOyw=; b=qHQbJ9mNdydTCFhSVOcdOyATVPgDIL6OsjlvazzYfHbC1qXdX4Gn7sz6PGekkUqJg8 PFy1kvoLdOrznCCHFs9RTTZIMgOirHQEGe2utqc/T9QWi24Rq4p9tgYGTv9Ofq22jwag 9l17dxpRKfMu1GaAlAfZEAQBJcyZV7wcTtsijzc9WWoPUEuptHJYd8wZZ66BHyygAvcP I5q+HnXKmnQekCwxXOriY7R7mZWTWyRnq31Rkfi5qV1dztbsvTkVxJMcEtcu7G7N7iEY U1mhlhQupvvDYtzZu3wXNzBf6Z/rAz98m921WBs6d+wcLHXHus/pyL3mp8yZe/tBu81T Z2tQ== X-Gm-Message-State: APf1xPDGFj89pbxo+DayY0Qd7Ei0NMRaMOdk/UEVOtxXAyXdYzSkuWhP zjZAvzTxbXZcVdT8smL33qhoSmhx X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x2279mKdyjpn8C/Hb5+fbKiF4d2qGjgpPB33KVLVkDVQASl3jqxOKwY8zmo3QW5+Yjd+8NECREw== X-Received: by 10.36.230.133 with SMTP id e127mr961036ith.54.1518652630370; Wed, 14 Feb 2018 15:57:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?IPv6:2601:600:a080:16bb:b8a0:700:98d6:2bf9? ([2601:600:a080:16bb:b8a0:700:98d6:2bf9]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id k5sm16605629ioe.59.2018.02.14.15.57.08 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 14 Feb 2018 15:57:09 -0800 (PST) To: Marco Falke , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion References: From: Eric Voskuil Message-ID: <8fb2e424-268c-7433-5f6b-5fbab5c5cc5c@voskuil.org> Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2018 15:57:10 -0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.5.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="Xc6rLNMemO1QaWmsAgCV8mIZWGn37uRe4" X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 15 Feb 2018 00:03:49 +0000 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Amend the BIP 123 process to include buried deployments X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2018 23:57:11 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --Xc6rLNMemO1QaWmsAgCV8mIZWGn37uRe4 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="ago9ro88l3u6tdENBEYhKhCTJzz0ISYBS"; protected-headers="v1" From: Eric Voskuil To: Marco Falke , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Message-ID: <8fb2e424-268c-7433-5f6b-5fbab5c5cc5c@voskuil.org> Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Amend the BIP 123 process to include buried deployments References: In-Reply-To: --ago9ro88l3u6tdENBEYhKhCTJzz0ISYBS Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 02/14/2018 02:01 PM, Marco Falke via bitcoin-dev wrote: > I define a buried deployment as a consensus rule change that affects > validity of blocks that are buried by a sufficiently large number of > blocks in the current valid most-work chain, Sufficient for what, specifically? > but the current block (and all its parents) remain valid. Remain valid in the case where the depth assumption is "sufficient" to ensure that a chain split is not possible? If this was true (which it is not), it would imply that there is no reason to validate any block deeper than the most recent 25,000. Presumably this means that people may continuously rely on some authority (like Bitcoin Core?) to determine the checkpoint for tip-25,000= =2E > BIP 123 suggests that BIPs in the consensus layer should be assigned a > label "soft fork" or "hard fork". However, I think the differentiation > into soft fork or hard fork should not be made for BIPs that document > buried deployments. In contrast to soft forks and hard forks, buried > deployments do not require community and miner coordination for a safe > deployment. They can only avoid this requirement based on the assumption that the hard fork cannot result in a chain split. This is not the case. > For a chain fork to happen due to a buried deployment, a massive chain > reorganization must be produced off of a block in the very past. In other words a "buried deployment" is a hard fork that is not likely to cause a chain split. This is a subjective subcategory of hard fork, not an independent category - unless maybe you can show that there is the 25,000 blocks number is an objective threshold. > In the extremely unlikely event of such a large chain reorganization, > Bitcoin's general security assumptions would be violated regardless of > the presence of a buried deployment. This is untrue. The "security assumptions" of Bitcoin do not preclude deep reorganizations. e --ago9ro88l3u6tdENBEYhKhCTJzz0ISYBS-- --Xc6rLNMemO1QaWmsAgCV8mIZWGn37uRe4 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJahMzXAAoJEDzYwH8LXOFO/PwH/0OLE9v2KthiYvSEBIwXJd3N jD1ZFrJqBxNf4ykDkKIml6b5cF+VFhxEeA3yhFqEhaGb5f2Z3k5ccNLAls2XqMbs oGyTaq7QFdjKrAWfa1/RUhAHq30QMxO1tnwkx6O3zyMtNraNwXwyFj3QN7HJdIA8 p+d+G6VoPCAYfS8lBj6fm3h0L6Vaaj6oSNXo+nU1WNvRUr8Sqfk6LRv2MV0/Y5E6 /mEQh78tX9b4SCuX8mBSe7AZZ2NII6cbhz4Dx2zxCge6sPjpa+uJAnKYuUdBR0Ld urg6y39KnBCWBRhBHHpnBbop4ttzm0SoDpuchL9nSasmxhzX0vjLxRmT0eJl9KU= =dALt -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Xc6rLNMemO1QaWmsAgCV8mIZWGn37uRe4--