From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1UFqOX-0000Ac-PO for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 18:27:21 +0000 Received: from mail-wi0-f182.google.com ([209.85.212.182]) by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1UFqOV-0004oD-Pt for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 18:27:21 +0000 Received: by mail-wi0-f182.google.com with SMTP id hi18so1068552wib.15 for ; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 11:27:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:x-originating-ip:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=mc8CpQ9vbft6gS1it+w3WF6c9ynxh1FSA7F4XZlBSEA=; b=Xc7dlJP7QwmmqBgN+g6CLkzLRAjiPcfc7VR6Og82AbUu9vRmtudexWCIKr3Jp9PUxg JvpFt/E1id23WE4I1RE29rAWH4DC+Lmgsy+cKotGfTj/neFWbjYYwDJcVvUmbAjoiGjJ PGKfte+uVXJSeny1u8xzP80D64Fix1Jvze4A+9vZGC2UIxSKyM2lQjHKBwEmjDvctv84 LF6oqTrqH8t7aVoDRx8yL0S2CIt7rYDa0joeaSqyAkGWLHYHlzixCoTXCq51cJMhlzQB vBr/4iH1vKBVn/VaU8lcUMA2sEnNllZfg+udqf6VRASyQfn7zsh/mTqpHftLgBvV8ty5 AAmw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.37.146 with SMTP id y18mr8330284wij.10.1363199233246; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 11:27:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.194.30.38 with HTTP; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 11:27:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: [128.102.238.116] In-Reply-To: <20130313175825.GA21242@vps7135.xlshosting.net> References: <201303131256.30144.luke@dashjr.org> <20130313175825.GA21242@vps7135.xlshosting.net> Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 11:27:13 -0700 Message-ID: From: Mark Friedenbach To: Pieter Wuille Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8f64663f0e598204d7d28eea X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmwR8NAGAa45VgeSQa3z+ms8wv79UApbCJEszcab2QIEzZMDsVzCxYVUlinVI5N8E7ePWGq X-Spam-Score: 1.0 (+) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message X-Headers-End: 1UFqOV-0004oD-Pt Cc: "bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net" Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] 0.8.1 ideas X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 18:27:21 -0000 --e89a8f64663f0e598204d7d28eea Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 This may be a semantic issue. I meant that it's not a hard-fork of the bitcoin protocol, which I'm taking to mean the way in which we all *expected* every version of the Satoshi client to behave: the rules which we have documented informally on the wiki, this mailing list, and in code comments, etc. I'm just trying to prevent protocol-creep. Luke-Jr is suggesting that we add-to/modify the bitcoin protocol rules which all verifying implementations must adhere to. I'm suggesting that we instead change the old codebase to do what we expected it to do all along (what 0.8 does and what every other verifying implementation does), and through miner collusion buy ourselves enough time for people to update their own installations. I know there's people here who will jump in saying that the bitcoin protocol is the behavior of the Satoshi client, period. But which Satoshi client? 0.7 or 0.8? How do you resolve that without being arbitrary? And regardless, we are moving very quickly towards a multi-client future. This problem is very clearly a *bug* in the old codebase. So let's be forward thinking and do what we would do in any other situation: fix the bug, responsibly notify people and give them time to react, then move on. Let's not codify the bug in the protocol. Mark On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 10:58 AM, Pieter Wuille wrote: > On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 10:41:29AM -0700, Mark Friedenbach wrote: > > 4) At some point in the future once we've crossed an acceptable adoption > > threshold, the miners remove the above patch in a coordinated way. > > > > Does that not get us past this crisis without a hard-fork? > > This is a hardfork: it means some nodes will have to accept blocks they > formerly considered invalid. > > -- > Pieter > --e89a8f64663f0e598204d7d28eea Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
This may be a semantic issue. I meant that it's n= ot a hard-fork of the bitcoin protocol, which I'm taking to mean the wa= y in which we all *expected* every version of the Satoshi client to behave:= the rules which we have documented informally on the wiki, this mailing li= st, and in code comments, etc. I'm just trying to prevent protocol-cree= p.

Luke-Jr is suggesting that we add-to/modify the bitcoin protocol rules = which all verifying implementations must adhere to. I'm suggesting that= we instead change the old codebase to do what we expected it to do all alo= ng (what 0.8 does and what every other verifying implementation does), and = through miner collusion buy ourselves enough time for people to update thei= r own installations.

I know there's people here who will jump in saying that the bitcoin= protocol is the behavior of the Satoshi client, period. But which Satoshi = client? 0.7 or 0.8? How do you resolve that without being arbitrary? And re= gardless, we are moving very quickly towards a multi-client future. This pr= oblem is very clearly a *bug* in the old codebase. So let's be forward = thinking and do what we would do in any other situation: fix the bug, respo= nsibly notify people and give them time to react, then move on. Let's n= ot codify the bug in the protocol.

Mark



<= div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 10:58 AM, Pieter Wuille <= span dir=3D"ltr"><pieter.wuille@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 10= :41:29AM -0700, Mark Friedenbach wrote:
> 4) At some point in the future once we've crossed an acceptable ad= option
> threshold, the miners remove the above patch in a coordinated way.
>
> Does that not get us past this crisis without a hard-fork?

This is a hardfork: it means some nodes will have to accept blocks th= ey formerly considered invalid.

--
Pieter

--e89a8f64663f0e598204d7d28eea--