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-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1Z6ctB-0001m6-IZ for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sun, 21 Jun 2015 10:54:13 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.220.175 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.220.175; envelope-from=tier.nolan@gmail.com; helo=mail-qk0-f175.google.com; Received: from mail-qk0-f175.google.com ([209.85.220.175]) by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1Z6ctA-0001LV-Lf for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sun, 21 Jun 2015 10:54:13 +0000 Received: by qkhu186 with SMTP id u186so85965811qkh.0 for ; Sun, 21 Jun 2015 03:54:07 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.55.26.162 with SMTP id l34mr1573962qkh.21.1434884047252; Sun, 21 Jun 2015 03:54:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.140.85.241 with HTTP; Sun, 21 Jun 2015 03:54:07 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2015 11:54:07 +0100 Message-ID: From: Tier Nolan Cc: Bitcoin Dev Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11441460ee31e3051904f99b X-Spam-Score: 0.5 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (tier.nolan[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 1.2 MISSING_HEADERS Missing To: header 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature -0.1 AWL AWL: Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address X-Headers-End: 1Z6ctA-0001LV-Lf Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] [BIP draft] Motivation and deployment of consensus rules changes ([soft/hard]forks) 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: Sun, 21 Jun 2015 10:54:13 -0000 --001a11441460ee31e3051904f99b Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, Jun 21, 2015 at 11:31 AM, Jorge Tim=C3=B3n wrote= : > You mean the timewarp fix can be coded as a softfork instead of a > hardfork? How so? > The easiest would be a rule requiring that all blocks are within 1 day of the median of the previous 11 blocks. At the moment, you need to be greater than that value. This would add a condition at the other end. It wouldn't be a total fix, but it would protect against the exploit. A stricter soft fork would be that the two blocks in question have to have the same timestamp. This would force the off by 1 and the correct value to give the same result. If that's the case, do you have a better candidate? > I think it is fine, since fixing it "right" does require a hard fork, especially if it is only to show a non controversial hard fork. --001a11441460ee31e3051904f99b Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On S= un, Jun 21, 2015 at 11:31 AM, Jorge Tim=C3=B3n <jtimon@jtimon.cc> wrote:
You mean the timewarp fix can be coded as a softfork instead of a hardfork? How so?

The easiest would be = a rule requiring that all blocks are within 1 day of the median of the prev= ious 11 blocks.=C2=A0 At the moment, you need to be greater than that value= .=C2=A0 This would add a condition at the other end.

It w= ouldn't be a total fix, but it would protect against the exploit.
A stricter soft fork would be that the two blocks in question = have to have the same timestamp.=C2=A0 This would force the off by 1 and th= e correct value to give the same result.

If that's the case, do you have a better candidate?

I think it is fine,= since fixing it "right" does require a hard fork, especially if = it is only to show a non controversial hard fork.
--001a11441460ee31e3051904f99b--