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 18981E3A for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2018 22:01:50 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-lf0-f50.google.com (mail-lf0-f50.google.com [209.85.215.50]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8099418A for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2018 22:01:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-lf0-f50.google.com with SMTP id w10so18681171lfc.9 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2018 14:01:49 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:sender:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=fTw2EXPuemA1gNLQpwu5rSpy9cg70a/VddOtoPMfqb8=; b=dlupE4Z4ftlWsYBAJe3WjZ+p2fDylBiZ8tLscZ8ofj60vnNdWzPxUy8I/DY/7FnT6T edTrobM1090DvIzqyYDqfPEXdknjO9TvXDyhTD8Xo18/4+iEOz9C0j68c5QcLT+mhh4j ookC8EX+EyNoKMQ69ZGmxaeAbx+CVwVp8iCg75Zve+ahLm4XQQiVWqssjuuzx7Ujb0Cm bT0PWXAPj/cafFgcEsMw8NCDTq/oaLvdgsvTpv7TrKnw7J/lV4nSJ8Eb5ct7JQfhP0UQ avXBzn9DuTmRxy7r/O36N9HUbL/07SvgkiqAGNzfQkSAN9hyrQU7Kvk+p2JKQg1wk3Cm ZuCQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:from:date:message-id:subject :to; bh=fTw2EXPuemA1gNLQpwu5rSpy9cg70a/VddOtoPMfqb8=; b=e3fVYsqBR5Y9EZgKoBaX27ZQ2qsetMVCz3cCWaEU7x0gIIvAaV074sc/Rz8UqxjxBP 0zIMGqdi59OMky/lnnhHROjJ7YbACUnp6IM/qnLNTwExYFwYXt97W65PyXH8puXYxaFp ctTuwV6KgOrQ1/sSJFjgRt3cn8DwSXBqVJYt/ZxDcPTacEac0/E7wKuTJzSGBCl7DafI sfgawGeijkaVhGFolUrVPRAQser31oHcUGfH/s3sVtlzGVkkfkefjD4QwYXtlqdcXKN5 8ZA0f8hymxpztgsypXppyg15JAH4hy8FlTVyOhyMtW9nUgvSIi/yOu7JF8EalHPZg9eY IdXg== X-Gm-Message-State: APf1xPC0LebEXQSiqEcdbsEzcYuzS0lGuuZ0M/TVr7V6IsT1wk3s3a44 +krDj83GtWIr0hFxWTXzDBz5vHR38r10D8I0Dn+w1wXh X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x225ltp6ZsimVeAOFATYxD58f46+YVmV2ncXwBKOhOovTM/1ndA41OY34Gzj0lrFbnpdqpRZ7a5XEoeXFDBcOuDo= X-Received: by 10.46.80.6 with SMTP id e6mr300284ljb.129.1518645707376; Wed, 14 Feb 2018 14:01:47 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: famonid@gmail.com Received: by 10.25.230.1 with HTTP; Wed, 14 Feb 2018 14:01:46 -0800 (PST) From: Marco Falke Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2018 17:01:46 -0500 X-Google-Sender-Auth: W1AF50VHAvlprbrXE-bYL76rU7Y Message-ID: To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, 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 Subject: [bitcoin-dev] Amend the BIP 123 process to include buried deployments 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: Wed, 14 Feb 2018 22:01:50 -0000 I define a buried deployment as a consensus rule change that affects validity of blocks that are buried by a sufficiently large number of blocks in the current valid most-work chain, but the current block (and all its parents) remain valid. BIP 123 suggests that BIPs in the consensus layer should be assigned a label "soft fork" or "hard fork". However, I think the differentiation into soft fork or hard fork should not be made for BIPs that document buried deployments. In contrast to soft forks and hard forks, buried deployments do not require community and miner coordination for a safe deployment. For a chain fork to happen due to a buried deployment, a massive chain reorganization must be produced off of a block in the very past. In the extremely unlikely event of such a large chain reorganization, Bitcoin's general security assumptions would be violated regardless of the presence of a buried deployment.