public inbox for bitcoindev@googlegroups.com
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: James Hilliard <james.hilliard1@gmail.com>
To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Blockchain verification flag (BIP draft)
Date: Sat, 5 Dec 2015 20:47:01 -0600	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CADvTj4q_Ubrk6a15Q4uB3MT0PHGnvZt3yPMOWCdPhWf_WGH-tA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <871tb16diz.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1702 bytes --]

I think something that anyone who isn't validating should be aware of is
that cgminer(which powers the vast majority of the current mining network)
doesn't allow for a pool to revert to mining on the previous block due to
the way chain tracking is implemented.

https://github.com/ckolivas/cgminer/blob/master/cgminer.c#L4727

On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 4:43 PM, Rusty Russell via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> Gavin Andresen via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
> writes:
> > Overall, good idea.
> >
> > Is there a write-up somewhere describing in detail the 'accidental
> selfish
> > mining' problem that this mitigates? I think a link in the BIP to a
> fuller
> > description of the problem and how validation-skipping makes it go away
> > would be helpful.
> >
> > RE: which bit to use:  the draft versionbits BIP and BIP101 use bit 30;
> to
> > avoid confusion, I think it would be better to use bit 0.
>
> Yes, BIP9 need to be adjusted (setting bit 30 means BIP9 counts it as a
> vote against all softforks).  BIP101 uses bits 0,1,2 AFAICT, so perhaps
> start from the other end and use bit 29?  We can bikeshed that later
> though...
>
> > I agree with Jannes Faber, behavior with respect to SPV clients should be
> > to only tell them about fully validated headers.
>
> A delicate balance.  If we penalize these blocks too much, it's
> disincentive to set the bit.  Fortunately it's easy for SPV clients to
> decide for themselves, I think?
>
> Cheers,
> Rusty.
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2575 bytes --]

  reply	other threads:[~2015-12-06  2:47 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-12-04  8:26 [bitcoin-dev] Blockchain verification flag (BIP draft) Gregory Maxwell
2015-12-04 12:44 ` Jannes Faber
2015-12-04 16:46   ` Thomas Kerin
2015-12-04 17:34 ` Gavin Andresen
2015-12-04 22:43   ` Rusty Russell
2015-12-06  2:47     ` James Hilliard [this message]
2015-12-06  6:26       ` Gregory Maxwell
2015-12-06  5:13     ` Gregory Maxwell

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=CADvTj4q_Ubrk6a15Q4uB3MT0PHGnvZt3yPMOWCdPhWf_WGH-tA@mail.gmail.com \
    --to=james.hilliard1@gmail.com \
    --cc=bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org \
    /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