MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CALJw2w5OiKHk1oj1p=rmQ-jvYOdieOD=xHcPt9D0A_-nLKvv7Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<939C132D-8599-4258-8F14-62E992BA9F51@mattcorallo.com>
In-Reply-To: <939C132D-8599-4258-8F14-62E992BA9F51@mattcorallo.com>
From: Karl-Johan Alm <karljohan-alm@garage.co.jp>
Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2019 09:43:43 +0900
Message-ID: <CALJw2w592Gid9cFZ21LKMMVr81_kRpY7rekrvs--dQdGamtaHA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Matt Corallo <lf-lists@mattcorallo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Signet
Precedence: list

Hi Matt,

On Sat, Mar 9, 2019 at 5:20 AM Matt Corallo <lf-lists@mattcorallo.com> wrot=
e:
>
> To make testing easier, it may make sense to keep the existing block head=
er format (and PoW) and instead apply the signature rules to some field in =
the coinbase transaction. This means SPV clients (assuming they only connec=
t to honest/trusted nodes) work as-is.

Keeping the PoW rule and moving the signature would mean DoS attacks
would be trivial as anyone could mine blocks without a signature in
them, unless you ramped up the difficulty, which would mean it's just
another testnet. It's a test network, admittedly, but I think it would
kind of defeat the purpose.

> A previous idea regarding reorgs (that I believe Greg came up with) is to=
 allow multiple keys to sign blocks, with one signing no reorgs and one sig=
ning a reorg every few blocks, allowing users to choose the behavior they w=
ant.

Not sure how this would work in practice. The idea with signet is to
have an actual network that is occasionally reorged, i.e. it's a
global network (for those participating) that everyone agrees on. Not
sure how you would have choices there.