To: Marco Falke <falke.marco@gmail.com>,
	Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
References: <CAK51vgDaSMH96VmHxgLswVQTxGGjy4VU0VnT4CZ7H+WJrrTApw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Eric Voskuil <eric@voskuil.org>
Message-ID: <8fb2e424-268c-7433-5f6b-5fbab5c5cc5c@voskuil.org>
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2018 15:57:10 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
	Thunderbird/52.5.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAK51vgDaSMH96VmHxgLswVQTxGGjy4VU0VnT4CZ7H+WJrrTApw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature";
	boundary="Xc6rLNMemO1QaWmsAgCV8mIZWGn37uRe4"
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Amend the BIP 123 process to include buried
 deployments
Precedence: list

This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156)
--Xc6rLNMemO1QaWmsAgCV8mIZWGn37uRe4
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="ago9ro88l3u6tdENBEYhKhCTJzz0ISYBS";
 protected-headers="v1"
From: Eric Voskuil <eric@voskuil.org>
To: Marco Falke <falke.marco@gmail.com>,
 Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Message-ID: <8fb2e424-268c-7433-5f6b-5fbab5c5cc5c@voskuil.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Amend the BIP 123 process to include buried
 deployments
References: <CAK51vgDaSMH96VmHxgLswVQTxGGjy4VU0VnT4CZ7H+WJrrTApw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAK51vgDaSMH96VmHxgLswVQTxGGjy4VU0VnT4CZ7H+WJrrTApw@mail.gmail.com>

--ago9ro88l3u6tdENBEYhKhCTJzz0ISYBS
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On 02/14/2018 02:01 PM, Marco Falke via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> 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,

Sufficient for what, specifically?

> but the current block (and all its parents) remain valid.

Remain valid in the case where the depth assumption is "sufficient" to
ensure that a chain split is not possible?

If this was true (which it is not), it would imply that there is no
reason to validate any block deeper than the most recent 25,000.
Presumably this means that people may continuously rely on some
authority (like Bitcoin Core?) to determine the checkpoint for tip-25,000=
=2E

> 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.

They can only avoid this requirement based on the assumption that the
hard fork cannot result in a chain split. This is not the case.

> 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 other words a "buried deployment" is a hard fork that is not likely
to cause a chain split. This is a subjective subcategory of hard fork,
not an independent category - unless maybe you can show that there is
the 25,000 blocks number is an objective threshold.

> 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.

This is untrue. The "security assumptions" of Bitcoin do not preclude
deep reorganizations.

e


--ago9ro88l3u6tdENBEYhKhCTJzz0ISYBS--

--Xc6rLNMemO1QaWmsAgCV8mIZWGn37uRe4
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJahMzXAAoJEDzYwH8LXOFO/PwH/0OLE9v2KthiYvSEBIwXJd3N
jD1ZFrJqBxNf4ykDkKIml6b5cF+VFhxEeA3yhFqEhaGb5f2Z3k5ccNLAls2XqMbs
oGyTaq7QFdjKrAWfa1/RUhAHq30QMxO1tnwkx6O3zyMtNraNwXwyFj3QN7HJdIA8
p+d+G6VoPCAYfS8lBj6fm3h0L6Vaaj6oSNXo+nU1WNvRUr8Sqfk6LRv2MV0/Y5E6
/mEQh78tX9b4SCuX8mBSe7AZZ2NII6cbhz4Dx2zxCge6sPjpa+uJAnKYuUdBR0Ld
urg6y39KnBCWBRhBHHpnBbop4ttzm0SoDpuchL9nSasmxhzX0vjLxRmT0eJl9KU=
=dALt
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--Xc6rLNMemO1QaWmsAgCV8mIZWGn37uRe4--