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 1CA801000 for ; Sat, 6 Feb 2016 17:45:17 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-lf0-f48.google.com (mail-lf0-f48.google.com [209.85.215.48]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 067C415A for ; Sat, 6 Feb 2016 17:45:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-lf0-f48.google.com with SMTP id l143so74817153lfe.2 for ; Sat, 06 Feb 2016 09:45:15 -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=nK9J+bJv+zARkRYdfbX6R3V5bsq3o78bLLjLjq5DxXY=; b=MfBtLny31YI93u3ZWnD6+I2nWr5Nq/zrAztdaZACZfq+8p8i9G31udXIJ01dJkNPt6 Rz/ta9rQOYRTk3clRD/uUEJeilKg3mYWl7BldUxdek1m4JXlNCqF3pLtTd1nitsGZp42 i/1jpSRYBMiVtXTkZOOpPIg7RZBAnC+WUonnr4b8bWzlPuAJOM+YF5CvUqHiCPC2HK3t i64LYqaPlPstNZ72Xb7CC5bgMGGgvn8AHLcwx++Dsvz4Q/ErgyoGOtAHiV8aU9pEYLRg iPZ0C2RkvO6uxR+Q8roqDvU8i8kua9DSi9sh7JgdxLOeCj3VrqJSRfvzjxgNw58lfvUW iT5Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=nK9J+bJv+zARkRYdfbX6R3V5bsq3o78bLLjLjq5DxXY=; b=Y51Otzp1JQv9u1Txn9mvv/YYPElfKmWfwSvl/EGLQbqp1BZRQT0kHrhQr+X0aTBL7E 6IVBROIw58XmmYVq49XXvjsXyl0J1LOV3Gr/WrrCv073BaSKbQ617WmtN8e6l8IJFNTY 6+/O/3Iyq906nYSWlJBmYiN2L3uyHxTEDpe9HkkGjjGombboe299lGDUYR3UJgllqsyW yqdFudPe55cmWQuldLq0G0wvI7MA70u7eM9C/fEUIFZNfVXbuOxre6ByX5q170kTncqq E7foVSEUhImeYuNYyHEr2YrRSVwS4bQEfYI5d7qtK42zpInaJ96hFVciGgbqwnOf03Um lU8A== X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YOR+j9I0CBTXYX566Zj9KxcYS6+NzBGB1D0EgpizYX8YVPiOuvezu26uQ24ib0sZDIMvCJkpy8z59bfS8A== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.25.43.20 with SMTP id r20mr8433433lfr.30.1454780714437; Sat, 06 Feb 2016 09:45:14 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.25.206.68 with HTTP; Sat, 6 Feb 2016 09:45:14 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <201602060012.26728.luke@dashjr.org> Date: Sat, 6 Feb 2016 12:45:14 -0500 Message-ID: From: Gavin Andresen To: Adam Back Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a114116bcb5d766052b1d8709 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 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sat, 06 Feb 2016 17:46:16 +0000 Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP proposal: Increase block size limit to 2 megabytes 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: Sat, 06 Feb 2016 17:45:17 -0000 --001a114116bcb5d766052b1d8709 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Sat, Feb 6, 2016 at 12:01 PM, Adam Back wrote: > > It would probably be a good idea to have a security considerations > section Containing what? I'm not aware of any security considerations that are any different from any other consensus rules change. (I can write a blog post summarizing our slack discussion of SPV security immediately after the first greater-than-1mb-block if you like). > , also, is there a list of which exchange, library, wallet, > pool, stats server, hardware etc you have tested this change against? > That testing is happening by the exchange, library, wallet, etc providers themselves. There is a list on the Classic home page: https://bitcoinclassic.com/ > > Do you have a rollback plan in the event the hard-fork triggers via > false voting as seemed to be prevalent during XT? (Or rollback just > as contingency if something unforseen goes wrong). > The only voting in this BIP is done by the miners, and that cannot be faked. Are you talking about people spinning up pseudo-full-nodes that fake the user-agent? As I said, there are people who have said they will spin up thousands of full nodes to help prevent possible Sybil attacks which would become marginally easier to accomplish immediately after the first >1mb block was produced and full nodes that hadn't upgraded were left behind. Would Blockstream be willing to help out by running a dozen or two extra full nodes? I can't imagine any even-remotely-likely sequence of events that would require a rollback, can you be more specific about what you are imagining? Miners suddenly getting cold feet? > How do you plan to monitor and manage security through the hard-fork? > I don't plan to monitor or manage anything; the Bitcoin network is self-monitoring and self-managing. Services like statoshi.info will do the monitoring, and miners and people and businesses will manage the network, as they do every day. -- -- Gavin Andresen --001a114116bcb5d766052b1d8709 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On S= at, Feb 6, 2016 at 12:01 PM, Adam Back <adam@cypherspace.org> wrote:

It would probably be a good idea to have a security considerations
section

Containing what?=C2=A0 I'm not = aware of any security considerations that are any different from any other = consensus rules change.

(I can write a blog post s= ummarizing our slack discussion of SPV security immediately after the first= greater-than-1mb-block if you like).

=C2=A0
=
, also, is there a list of which exchange, library, wallet= ,
pool, stats server, hardware etc you have tested this change against?

That testing is happening by the exchange, l= ibrary, wallet, etc providers themselves. There is a list on the Classic ho= me page:

=C2=A0

Do you have a rollback plan in the event the hard-fork triggers via
false voting as seemed to be prevalent during XT?=C2=A0 (Or rollback just as contingency if something unforseen goes wrong).
The only voting in this BIP is done by the miners, and that can= not be faked.

Are you talking about people spinnin= g up pseudo-full-nodes that fake the user-agent?

A= s I said, there are people who have said they will spin up thousands of ful= l nodes to help prevent possible Sybil attacks which would become marginall= y easier to accomplish immediately after the first >1mb block was produc= ed and full nodes that hadn't upgraded were left behind.

=
Would Blockstream be willing to help out by running a dozen or t= wo extra full nodes?

I can't imagine any even-= remotely-likely sequence of events that would require a rollback, can you b= e more specific about what you are imagining?=C2=A0 Miners suddenly getting= cold feet?
=C2=A0
How do you plan to mon= itor and manage security through the hard-fork?

I don't plan to monitor or manage anything; the Bitcoin networ= k is self-monitoring and self-managing. Services like statoshi.info will do the monitoring, and miners and people= and businesses will manage the network, as they do every day.
--
--
Gavin Andresen

--001a114116bcb5d766052b1d8709--