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 8D47C15C5 for ; Mon, 28 Sep 2015 12:44:47 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-pa0-f43.google.com (mail-pa0-f43.google.com [209.85.220.43]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C963D1CA for ; Mon, 28 Sep 2015 12:44:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: by pablk4 with SMTP id lk4so77135895pab.3 for ; Mon, 28 Sep 2015 05:44:46 -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=WkkJdikRlCCwdolzXzy/ity4h6MZn8yll5eRqt6og/w=; b=vAKJHULee7JtEkwncQmn7g4LExjDy5cf5XQjSN5fh5/dBbor0VXZEA5YaaPD5JEq9Y hLYyQsX9++aSkKgUXobJ2xLit+F+b25yoBjPu3QG4YZD1SG2CtriZEVJuiR7b71aq2z3 mD5E4y3jbggGyt4OR1FoWQKznigZsxFH+0nhkWAY7wdBci48iQPqeLaxo6MEq4rguh/8 6apJi5xZimCoxVqGne+E+pX0GdK4QUhlhFUjcDjdjrN3csGIeJlbs+F8geFV43sf3Upf hRXsAVug6kXz0anV1MM/LmbrbhJiQvnNptRximTmJ3qlFgEE1V8en2LLHAC5hE0VQmFG yM/Q== X-Received: by 10.66.237.6 with SMTP id uy6mr26128764pac.129.1443444286517; Mon, 28 Sep 2015 05:44:46 -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 oq9sm5177057pbb.0.2015.09.28.05.44.45 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 28 Sep 2015 05:44:45 -0700 (PDT) User-Agent: K-9 Mail for Android In-Reply-To: References: <20150927185031.GA20599@savin.petertodd.org> <4965E9A0-0FF1-4A3F-9165-A21AF976E229@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----E0ORFEWPSMSAL1KIO9B2BPQDDZUGB1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: Eric Lombrozo Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2015 05:44:52 -0700 To: Mike Hearn Message-ID: 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: Mike Hearn via 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 12:44:47 -0000 ------E0ORFEWPSMSAL1KIO9B2BPQDDZUGB1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 SPV wallets in their current form are inherently insecure. Moreover, while we at least have a soft fork mechanism that is not trivially exploitable (yes, it's got issues...but unlike SPV wallets, it isn't so easily exploitable), we have NO hard fork mechanism in place that isn't highly prone to systemic consensus failure. But I think pretty much anyone who hasn't been in a coma for the last several years knows this...and I'll stop repeating the obvious. On September 28, 2015 5:26:17 AM PDT, Mike Hearn wrote: >> >> 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. >> > >I don't intend to do that, and I don't think I am - I know what the >difference between a soft and hard fork is and am not trying to confuse >or >blur the two. > >To reiterate: this current BIP implements a soft fork. I am not >debating >that. I am saying it should use a hard fork instead. This will ensure >no >repeat of the P2SH case where invalid blocks were being found for weeks >(or >was it months?) after the new rules kicked in, thus exposing SPV >wallets >and old nodes to unnecessary risk for no benefit. > >Additionally, I am making it clear that there's no consensus for >rolling >out the new opcode in this way. As you say, the mechanism has issues. >If >you read the comments when I wrote my article, you can see that others >share the same concerns: > >https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3griiv/on_consensus_and_forks_by_mike_hearn -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. ------E0ORFEWPSMSAL1KIO9B2BPQDDZUGB1 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit SPV wallets in their current form are inherently insecure. Moreover, while we at least have a soft fork mechanism that is not trivially exploitable (yes, it's got issues...but unlike SPV wallets, it isn't so easily exploitable), we have NO hard fork mechanism in place that isn't highly prone to systemic consensus failure.

But I think pretty much anyone who hasn't been in a coma for the last several years knows this...and I'll stop repeating the obvious.

On September 28, 2015 5:26:17 AM PDT, Mike Hearn <hearn@vinumeris.com> wrote:
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.

I don't intend to do that, and I don't think I am - I know what the difference between a soft and hard fork is and am not trying to confuse or blur the two.

To reiterate: this current BIP implements a soft fork. I am not debating that. I am saying it should use a hard fork instead. This will ensure no repeat of the P2SH case where invalid blocks were being found for weeks (or was it months?) after the new rules kicked in, thus exposing SPV wallets and old nodes to unnecessary risk for no benefit.

Additi onally, I am making it clear that there's no consensus for rolling out the new opcode in this way. As you say, the mechanism has issues. If you read the comments when I wrote my article, you can see that others share the same concerns:




--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. ------E0ORFEWPSMSAL1KIO9B2BPQDDZUGB1--