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 759D4720 for ; Sat, 8 Apr 2017 16:16:07 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-wr0-f178.google.com (mail-wr0-f178.google.com [209.85.128.178]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E24081B9 for ; Sat, 8 Apr 2017 16:16:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-wr0-f178.google.com with SMTP id g19so81443144wrb.0 for ; Sat, 08 Apr 2017 09:16:06 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=pMm1jpvMF1zNOc7zUrw4hxE7brwL+fy9ftmdP+G1liM=; b=buUZqwJd6A3ouKcma8GOcxG/P7214YrS5lAN4Qg/U2Wl8JREAxoR6zZYQxuFEXBMZ/ yVllQjlnvhP0RzlxDqW12am/fQC4dWC0LJj0fv7OZiLM9tvOTKEy1lJMUiCKCJ6kI1OK ZFHygY/evolAz4a2IWPeyYGJJxuSnuxezNoLYBroUTHc0VJZjeLFT7idOEUA1FYnFFiR 0UwG0y6pp8i7qOCqTjdKG58JTZbidzrhTE5Iwv6CdmptWAXkeq1kmCtJfGVBBQstaB7G FCXuLF5USc72+A76ynfpSWvGEQr2gfV+jmSHVzl57sS33Ifm0fisR5gw4CxiiChmhObQ 5+Og== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=pMm1jpvMF1zNOc7zUrw4hxE7brwL+fy9ftmdP+G1liM=; b=s84O4tILz8ItfZ9gZ9wyKO3RzGOLkUi2xpYP3Ox8ORrpATDZt9QGIn+2BfO8RkrzxZ MN2Ky2vfAvfDcZRF9emw8evHWfDwiXZbXLiyh6vmOJVaTwJUWyeddOAgej1CJq2zy1bT wX84ldLr9FTT535+MV/enLFS3WpqkltgWLZQ4YWP6DxpRsxHfYl+8tYKshkiRyGniHOd ztfmghgrjjL8LPKP5L0z0pQEhQsTW2ML3OWoGCi0bB0xAR55szrIFqpbTLcvcJpMDkeJ offOCqqrY5wPmFIs/lzqhvYj1vzbgn4Eez3kkrsJ4rI6EwNCab/Emhwjy3ASJKmUalH9 f/6A== X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H1V3OhyIx5kTmuXpqgZPDfi/51Se1PxF96wiQGYV4/iuGtGSAxgpucDLRrda2E218vZkHv7vVLKpOUXZg== X-Received: by 10.223.142.45 with SMTP id n42mr16727957wrb.131.1491668165554; Sat, 08 Apr 2017 09:16:05 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.223.134.243 with HTTP; Sat, 8 Apr 2017 09:16:05 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <201704081605.10175.luke@dashjr.org> References: <201704081459.13185.luke@dashjr.org> <201704081605.10175.luke@dashjr.org> From: Jimmy Song Date: Sat, 8 Apr 2017 11:16:05 -0500 Message-ID: To: Luke Dashjr Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f403045f56e2217ad1054caa0f94 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE 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, 08 Apr 2017 16:22:32 +0000 Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] A Small Modification to Segwit X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2017 16:16:07 -0000 --f403045f56e2217ad1054caa0f94 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > > No, it isn't allowed right now. Doing it wouldn't invalidate blocks, but it > would clearly be an attack on the network and cause harm. The same as if > miners were to maliciously mine only empty blocks. > > What's your definition of "allowed" then? Because a miner definitely can mine only empty blocks and a miner definitely can do overt ASICBoost (using as little as 1 bit of the version field) right now. I thought you meant allowed in the sense that if a block is allowed, it is a valid block on the network. It sounds like you mean something else, perhaps, "a block is allowed if it doesn't cause harm to the network." I'm not sure how you quantify that as that seems pretty subjective. --f403045f56e2217ad1054caa0f94 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

No, it isn't allowed right now. Doing it wouldn't invalidate= blocks, but it
would clearly be an attack on the network and cause harm. The same as if miners were to maliciously mine only empty blocks.


What's your definition of "allowed" th= en? Because a miner definitely can mine only empty blocks and a miner defin= itely can do overt ASICBoost (using as little as 1 bit of the version field= ) right now. I thought you meant allowed in the sense that if a block is al= lowed, it is a valid block on the network. It sounds like you mean somethin= g else, perhaps, "a block is allowed if it doesn't cause harm to t= he network." I'm not sure how you quantify that as that seems pret= ty subjective.

--f403045f56e2217ad1054caa0f94--