MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20150928132814.GB4829@savin.petertodd.org>
References: <20150927185031.GA20599@savin.petertodd.org>
	<CA+w+GKRCVr-9TVk66utp7xLRgTxNpxYoj3XQE-6y_N8JS6eO6Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABsx9T0XW_jGYhNw6t29AZXz1TxjuHjfEvsbdF5Ji7LUkFo4Ow@mail.gmail.com>
	<20150928132814.GB4829@savin.petertodd.org>
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2015 09:43:42 -0400
Message-ID: <CABsx9T1qUcdFjvJfM-hOHh5pUeoA76uW2qOC6kRiM-+Qrfop7w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
To: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0158c94cb4db390520cee2fe
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Let's deploy BIP65 CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY!
Precedence: list

--089e0158c94cb4db390520cee2fe
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 9:28 AM, Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org> wrote:

> > 2) Mr. Todd (or somebody) needs to write up a risk/benefit security
> > tradeoff analysis doo-hickey document and publish it. I'm reasonably
> > confident that the risks to SPV nodes can be mitigated (e.g. by deploying
> > mempool-only first, before the soft fork rolls out), but as somebody who
> > has only been moderately paying attention, BETTER COMMUNICATION is
> needed.
> > What should SPV wallet authors be doing right now, if anything? Once the
> > soft fork starts to roll out or activates, what do miners need to be
> aware
> > of? SPV wallet authors?
>
> Do you have such a document for your BIP101? That would save me a lot of
> time, and the need for that kind of document is significantly higher
> with BIP101 anyway.
>

Hmmm?  When I asked YOU for that kind of security analysis document, you
said you'd see if any of your clients would be willing to let you publish
one you'd done in the past. Then I never heard back from you.

So, no, I don't have one for BIP 101, but unless you were lying and just
trying to add Yet Another Hoop for BIP 101 to jump through, you should
already have something to start from.

RE: mempool only: yes, pull-req 5000 satisfies (and that's what I was
thinking of). There should be a nice, readable blog post explaining to
other full node implementors and wallet implementors why that was done for
Core and what they should do to follow 'best practices to be soft-fork
ready.'

-- 
--
Gavin Andresen

--089e0158c94cb4db390520cee2fe
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On M=
on, Sep 28, 2015 at 9:28 AM, Peter Todd <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"ma=
ilto:pete@petertodd.org" target=3D"_blank">pete@petertodd.org</a>&gt;</span=
> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;bo=
rder-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class=3D"">&gt; 2) Mr. Tod=
d (or somebody) needs to write up a risk/benefit security<br>
&gt; tradeoff analysis doo-hickey document and publish it. I&#39;m reasonab=
ly<br>
&gt; confident that the risks to SPV nodes can be mitigated (e.g. by deploy=
ing<br>
&gt; mempool-only first, before the soft fork rolls out), but as somebody w=
ho<br>
&gt; has only been moderately paying attention, BETTER COMMUNICATION is nee=
ded.<br>
&gt; What should SPV wallet authors be doing right now, if anything? Once t=
he<br>
&gt; soft fork starts to roll out or activates, what do miners need to be a=
ware<br>
&gt; of? SPV wallet authors?<br>
<br>
</span>Do you have such a document for your BIP101? That would save me a lo=
t of<br>
time, and the need for that kind of document is significantly higher<br>
with BIP101 anyway.<br></blockquote></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br></=
div>Hmmm?=C2=A0 When I asked YOU for that kind of security analysis documen=
t, you said you&#39;d see if any of your clients would be willing to let yo=
u publish one you&#39;d done in the past. Then I never heard back from you.=
</div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra">So, n=
o, I don&#39;t have one for BIP 101, but unless you were lying and just try=
ing to add Yet Another Hoop for BIP 101 to jump through, you should already=
 have something to start from.<br><br>RE: mempool only: yes, pull-req 5000 =
satisfies (and that&#39;s what I was thinking of). There should be a nice, =
readable blog post explaining to other full node implementors and wallet im=
plementors why that was done for Core and what they should do to follow =
9;best practices to be soft-fork ready.&#39;<div><br></div>-- <br><div clas=
s=3D"gmail_signature">--<br>Gavin Andresen<br></div>
</div></div>

--089e0158c94cb4db390520cee2fe--