From: "Kenshiro []" <tensiam@hotmail.com>
To: Alistair Mann <al@pectw.net>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Add a moving checkpoint to the Bitcoin protocol
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2019 14:53:25 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <DB6PR10MB183271245AAE84FB9AC96474A6DF0@DB6PR10MB1832.EURPRD10.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <DB6PR10MB1832F1E966CD83BC662985BDA6DF0@DB6PR10MB1832.EURPRD10.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1768 bytes --]
P.S.: To be clearer, in this example I set an N value of 144 blocks, which is approximately 24 hours.
________________________________
From: Kenshiro [] <tensiam@hotmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2019 16:40
To: Alistair Mann <al@pectw.net>; Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Add a moving checkpoint to the Bitcoin protocol
>>> How would a (potentially, state-sponsored) netsplit lasting longer than N be
handled?
It would be detected by the community much before reaching the reorg limit of N blocks (it's 24 hours) so nodes could stop until the netsplit is fixed.
In the extreme case no one notice the network split during more than N blocks (24 hours) and there are 2 permanent forks longer than N, nodes from one branch could delete their local history so they would join the other branch.
Regards,
________________________________
From: Alistair Mann <al@pectw.net>
Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2019 15:59
To: Kenshiro [] <tensiam@hotmail.com>; Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Add a moving checkpoint to the Bitcoin protocol
On Wednesday 31 Jul 2019 12:28:58 Kenshiro [] via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> I would like to propose that a "moving checkpoint" is added to the Bitcoin
> protocol. It's a very simple rule already implemented in NXT coin:
>
> - A node will ignore any new block under nodeBlockHeight - N, so the
> blockchain becomes truly immutable after N blocks, even during a 51% attack
> which thanks to the moving checkpoint can't rewrite history older than the
> last N blocks.
How would a (potentially, state-sponsored) netsplit lasting longer than N be
handled?
--
Alistair Mann
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3999 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-07-31 14:53 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-07-31 12:28 [bitcoin-dev] Add a moving checkpoint to the Bitcoin protocol Kenshiro []
2019-07-31 13:59 ` Alistair Mann
2019-07-31 14:40 ` Kenshiro []
2019-07-31 14:53 ` Kenshiro [] [this message]
2019-07-31 23:28 ` Alistair Mann
2019-08-01 10:17 ` Kenshiro []
2019-08-02 12:19 ` Ethan Heilman
2019-08-02 13:08 ` Kenshiro []
2019-08-03 0:51 ` LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH
2019-08-03 10:35 ` Kenshiro []
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=DB6PR10MB183271245AAE84FB9AC96474A6DF0@DB6PR10MB1832.EURPRD10.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM \
--to=tensiam@hotmail.com \
--cc=al@pectw.net \
--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