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 262B81660 for ; Thu, 1 Oct 2015 01:08:45 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-io0-f179.google.com (mail-io0-f179.google.com [209.85.223.179]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BAC091B0 for ; Thu, 1 Oct 2015 01:08:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: by iofh134 with SMTP id h134so68590789iof.0 for ; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 18:08:44 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=r+BPONHtBsN1njVaZNfkAuBRThtUAupZmyjpG3K/uRg=; b=flmHxy1xmJBFtrfP0AEwzSPg+4vBa3OBF/hulm92x+NGiayveA1fK98uahpcPkETls VwY2yOBEUSeQvfDQ6zZD2Neji+OPXVE7ZBjcGIv+1ycSW/gkLgT295VL0KcM1+PdPgUS FvQAjjqO0n3w9TbDq+wUwtgy+/w6s11jI1IW7ph8Huu6npe0xiqnxBCN0Cx6FrGSc1Zc H5oUPreyZAPaAO7I/IqmMqrxAt93+MkFZCbafuUjrQrMjaWsnRqAH1JjW3/SgUElLsI2 bn1Sle6ilkEaqzXqXBHCWq/9EtXk3G8PciXHo/FzGt3sUeqc1XFaYhNgP63BTRljUN4E GHFQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.107.18.26 with SMTP id a26mr8572592ioj.150.1443661724155; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 18:08:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.107.19.30 with HTTP; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 18:08:44 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2015 01:08:44 +0000 Message-ID: From: Gregory Maxwell To: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, 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: Bitcoin Dev Subject: [bitcoin-dev] Pedantic note on the use of "eventual consistency" to describe Bitcoin [Was: 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: Thu, 01 Oct 2015 01:08:45 -0000 On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 10:14 PM, Jorge Tim=C3=B3n wrote: > reason you don't think guaranteed eventual consistency has any value Obligatory pedantic correction: In Bitcoin we don't actually achieve "eventual consistency" of the kind which is usually described in the literature. In Bitcoin the probability of reorg to a particular point diminishes over time but never is guaranteed to be _zero_ (at least within the framework of bitcoin itself), and at the same time we have stronger ordering properties than is normally implied by eventual consistency (so, e.g. an update may never happen if its conflicted first). This is completely irrelevant to your point-- soft forks obey the normal consistency process for bitcoin where a hard fork (especially a mutual one) does not... but I'm sure there is an academic out there that cringes when we use the words "eventual consistency" to describe Bitcoin, and I feel like I'd be remiss to not offer this minor correction. :)