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 7F77F1212 for ; Wed, 30 Dec 2015 23:10:07 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-io0-f178.google.com (mail-io0-f178.google.com [209.85.223.178]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AAD3A14F for ; Wed, 30 Dec 2015 23:10:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-io0-f178.google.com with SMTP id o67so362261043iof.3 for ; Wed, 30 Dec 2015 15:10:06 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=LZDC3BjGYrU+sS/+fsm6abflTHmOX4iXfpIbsfRd0gQ=; b=c+9FlIns2c0x1A6Zcjo8CORmzaHQIRGEZUqvrAGl994q8Vshp8k0MoVmKuWmibHQYg YW3sI+dIWBDErNCVITaBMlvJri09OLmW8EY7wjP9x6273yeykQvVpWmt/uqyMrvu+U7G ZnrIQNnYDwSgV7nkeyugPTreEq4Mw4/L33y4KJ95+65MJCc2v1piW+3QeqboxYW3LjAF +X0ImsS7xsHZx7U747Iznn+IS5Fy4khmer2bkg90dZCovjFkMOV92dZtFyNkRwI++XSq lwSeGf2TFD40zVncyImup5LWwkk5qJ6AFHKn7zv2t96X9S4eSX86JEwA//KOtg+KtViH WVZQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.107.130.90 with SMTP id e87mr55758632iod.77.1451517006041; Wed, 30 Dec 2015 15:10:06 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.36.66.132 with HTTP; Wed, 30 Dec 2015 15:10:05 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2015 17:10:05 -0600 Message-ID: From: Bryan Bishop To: Adam Back , Bryan Bishop Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113eb42a87d92d052825a361 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: bitcoin-dev Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] fork types (Re: An implementation of BIP102 as a softfork.) 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: Wed, 30 Dec 2015 23:10:07 -0000 --001a113eb42a87d92d052825a361 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 5:05 PM, Adam Back via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > There is also another type of fork a firm hard fork that can do the > same but for format changes that are not possible with a soft-fork. > I was drafting an email for a new thread with some links about this topic, instead I'll just send this as a reply now that we are writing down fork types... auxiliary blocks and evil soft-forks or forced soft-forks: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=283746.0 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=874313.0 soft-fork block size increase using extension blocks: http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-May/008356.html generalized soft-forks: http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-December/012073.html bip102 forced soft-fork: http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-December/012153.html extension blocks were also discussed in this interview: http://diyhpl.us/wiki/transcripts/bitcoin-sidechains-unchained-epicenter-adam3us-gmaxwell/ .... also there was something about a "soft-hard fork". some discussion from today re: origin of the term evil fork, evil soft-fork, forced soft-fork: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3yrsxt/bitcoindev_an_implementation_of_bip102_as_a/cyg2g7q some much older discussion about extension blocks and sidechains: http://gnusha.org/bitcoin-wizards/2015-01-01.log some discussion about "generalized soft-forks" and extension blocks and evil soft-forks: http://gnusha.org/bitcoin-wizards/2015-12-20.log some discussion about evil forks and evil soft-forks and extension blocks: http://gnusha.org/bitcoin-wizards/2015-12-30.log segwit soft-fork makes use of a similar idea: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-December/011865.html https://bitcoin.org/en/bitcoin-core/capacity-increases-faq http://diyhpl.us/wiki/transcripts/scalingbitcoin/hong-kong/segregated-witness-and-its-impact-on-scalability/ Note: I am taking the term "forced soft-fork" from petertodd; it's pretty much the same thing as "evil fork" in every way but intent. This is an x-post from https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1296628.msg13400092#msg13400092 - Bryan http://heybryan.org/ 1 512 203 0507 --001a113eb42a87d92d052825a361 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On W= ed, Dec 30, 2015 at 5:05 PM, Adam Back via bitcoin-dev &l= t;bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
There is also = another type of fork a firm hard fork that can do the
same but for format changes that are not possible with a soft-fork.

I was drafting an email for a new thread with some lin= ks about this topic, instead I'll just send this as a reply now that we= are writing down fork types...

auxiliary blocks and= evil soft-forks or forced soft-forks:
=

soft-fork block size increase using extension blocks:
http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-May/= 008356.html
some discussion from today re: origin of the term evil for= k, evil soft-fork, forced soft-fork:
some much older d= iscussion about extension blocks and sidechains:

some discussion about "generalize= d soft-forks" and extension blocks and evil soft-forks:
http://gnusha.org/= bitcoin-wizards/2015-12-20.log

some discussion about evil f= orks and evil soft-forks and extension blocks:
http://diyhpl.us/wiki/transcripts/scalingbitcoin/hong-= kong/segregated-witness-and-its-impact-on-scalability/

Note: I a= m taking the term "forced soft-fork" from petertodd; it's pre= tty much the same thing as "evil fork" in every way but intent.

<= div class=3D"gmail_signature">- Bryan
http://heybryan.org/
1 512 203 0507
--001a113eb42a87d92d052825a361--