Return-Path: <al@pectw.net> Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7FC443CA6 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; Wed, 31 Jul 2019 14:31:29 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: delayed 00:31:53 by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from pectw.vm.bytemark.co.uk (pectw.vm.bytemark.co.uk [80.68.92.123]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 443BFE7 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; Wed, 31 Jul 2019 14:31:27 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=pectw.net; s=dkim_test; h=Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version: References:In-Reply-To:Message-ID:Date:Subject:To:From:Sender:Reply-To:Cc: Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender: Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=UdGDnJm/EP271PEGTapkR2Uaw51qk9WhxjQpfVOgFbE=; b=sLXO8Q8cFoUNFxNe2OKdxk4frm IDGbSGzy+Ac7OIy2L1G+Mc6ryNCJKnOTdhoq4dEGSIwYpopYtzLbrlTuhYvFKy/kV+WMu1DlHeKrM qCwX2NgeS3KnsnQIwcNdiTgN+; Received: from host109-153-202-196.range109-153.btcentralplus.com ([109.153.202.196] helo=svetlana.localhost) by pectw.vm.bytemark.co.uk with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from <al@pectw.net>) id 1hsp8f-0003UB-PG; Wed, 31 Jul 2019 13:59:33 +0000 From: Alistair Mann <al@pectw.net> To: "Kenshiro []" <tensiam@hotmail.com>, Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2019 14:59:33 +0100 Message-ID: <28454621.Lge63Ifvux@dprfs-d5766> User-Agent: KMail/4.14.2 (Linux/4.4.0-18-generic; KDE/4.14.2; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: <DB6PR10MB1832329BC8D151DC18F1E6CEA6DF0@DB6PR10MB1832.EURPRD10.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> References: <DB6PR10MB1832329BC8D151DC18F1E6CEA6DF0@DB6PR10MB1832.EURPRD10.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU 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: Wed, 31 Jul 2019 18:19:46 +0000 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Add a moving checkpoint to the Bitcoin protocol X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org> List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>, <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/> List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>, <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2019 14:31:29 -0000 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