public inbox for bitcoindev@googlegroups.com
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Jorge Timón" <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
To: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] [BIP Proposal] Version bits with timeout and delay.
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 22:27:33 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CABm2gDqh=Dv2Ygctg+jEt61N_nJDRBMqdZypSPtmfM2QrY4AYQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87r3lyjewl.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3208 bytes --]

For enforcing new restrictions on your own blocks (thus at the policy
level, not consensus) you don't need to wait for 75%. You can do it from
the start (this way all miners setting the bit will enforce the new
restrictions.
On Sep 16, 2015 4:20 PM, "Rusty Russell via bitcoin-dev" <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> Tier Nolan via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
> writes:
> > On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 7:56 PM, Rusty Russell via bitcoin-dev <
> > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> >
> >> '''States'''
> >> With every softfork proposal we associate a state BState, which begins
> >> at ''defined'', and can be ''locked-in'', ''activated'',
> >> or ''failed''.  Transitions are considered after each
> >> retarget period.
> >>
> >
> > I think the 75% rule should be maintained.  It confirms that miners who
> are
> > setting the bit are actually creating blocks that meet the new rule
> (though
> > it doesn't check if they are enforcing it).
>
> I couldn't see a use for it, since partial enforcement of a soft fork is
> pretty useless.
>
> Your point about checking that miners are actually doing it is true,
> though all stuff being forked in in future will be nonstandard AFAICT.
>
> I bias towards simplicity for this.
>
> > What is the reason for aligning the updated to the difficulty window?
>
> Miners already have that date in their calendar, so prefer to anchor to
> that.
>
> > *defined*
> > Miners set bit
> > If 75% of blocks of last 2016 have bit set, goto tentative
> >
> >
> > *tentative*
> > Miners set bit
> > Reject blocks that have bit set that don't follow new rule
> > If 95% of blocks of last 2016 have bit set, goto locked-in
> >
> >
> > *locked-in*
> >
> > Point of no return
> > Miners still set bit
> > Reject blocks that have bit set that don't follow new rule
> > After 2016 blocks goto notice
>
> OK, *that* variant makes perfect sense, and is no more complex, AFAICT.
>
> So, there's two weeks to detect bad implementations, then you everyone
> stops setting the bit, for later reuse by another BIP.
>
> > I think counting in blocks is easier to be exact here.
>
> Easier for code, but harder for BIP authors.
>
> > If two bits were allocated per proposal, then miners could vote against
> > forks to recover the bits.  If 25% of the miners vote against, then that
> > kills it.
>
> You need a timeout: an ancient (non-mining, thus undetectable) node
> should never fork itself off the network because someone reused a failed
> BIP bit.
>
> > In the rationale, it would be useful to discuss effects on SPV clients
> and
> > buggy miners.
> >
> > SPV clients should be recommended to actually monitor the version field.
>
> SPV clients don't experience a security change when a soft fork occurs?
> They're already trusting miners.
>
> Greg pointed out that soft forks tend to get accompanied by block forks
> across activation, but SPV clients should *definitely* be taking those
> into account whenever they happen, right?
>
> Thanks!
> Rusty.
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4280 bytes --]

  reply	other threads:[~2015-09-16 20:27 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-09-13 18:56 [bitcoin-dev] [BIP Proposal] Version bits with timeout and delay Rusty Russell
2015-09-16 15:53 ` Btc Drak
2015-09-16 17:53 ` Tier Nolan
2015-09-16 20:19   ` Rusty Russell
2015-09-16 20:27     ` Jorge Timón [this message]
2015-09-16 20:32       ` Tier Nolan
2015-09-16 20:38         ` Jorge Timón
2015-09-16 20:48           ` Tier Nolan
2015-09-16 20:54             ` Jorge Timón
2015-09-16 20:57               ` Tier Nolan
2015-09-16 21:03                 ` Jorge Timón
2015-09-16 22:52                   ` Eric Lombrozo
2015-09-17 10:38                     ` Tier Nolan
2015-09-17 13:59                       ` Jorge Timón
2015-09-17 21:57                       ` Rusty Russell
2015-09-17 22:00           ` Rusty Russell
2015-09-19  5:04             ` Jorge Timón
2015-09-20  3:56               ` Rusty Russell
2015-09-21  8:24                 ` Jorge Timón
2015-09-21 10:34                   ` Rusty Russell
2015-09-16 20:30     ` Tier Nolan
2015-09-18  1:19       ` Rusty Russell
2015-09-23 18:33 ` Tom Harding
2015-09-23 19:01   ` Gavin Andresen
2015-09-30  2:05   ` Rusty Russell
2015-09-30 23:41     ` Tom Harding

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to='CABm2gDqh=Dv2Ygctg+jEt61N_nJDRBMqdZypSPtmfM2QrY4AYQ@mail.gmail.com' \
    --to=jtimon@jtimon.cc \
    --cc=bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=rusty@rustcorp.com.au \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox