1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
|
Return-Path: <pete@petertodd.org>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AE28D895
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 4 Aug 2015 21:47:17 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from outmail149084.authsmtp.net (outmail149084.authsmtp.net
[62.13.149.84])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F9A2EA
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 4 Aug 2015 21:47:16 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-c235.authsmtp.com (mail-c235.authsmtp.com [62.13.128.235])
by punt18.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id t74LlFD8002450;
Tue, 4 Aug 2015 22:47:15 +0100 (BST)
Received: from [25.114.14.211] ([24.114.75.173]) (authenticated bits=0)
by mail.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id t74LlARP007838
(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO);
Tue, 4 Aug 2015 22:47:12 +0100 (BST)
In-Reply-To: <CABm2gDonaiD_VxGoRHjXC8Ut3jxRG-cHVfdL9Y4voZz5m=z7SA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABm2gDoxr4yY6XPZOEG0CF_iPO+b1H3_yFoKnYa68Y4b=Tcwrw@mail.gmail.com>
<CABsx9T0c10SDHCBy5=iPKVvsNPmKr2ejUxLp0rJPZmPRPQpfig@mail.gmail.com>
<CABm2gDonaiD_VxGoRHjXC8Ut3jxRG-cHVfdL9Y4voZz5m=z7SA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=UTF-8
From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2015 21:29:56 +0000
To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Tim=F3n?= <jtimon@jtimon.cc>,
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Tim=F3n_via_bitcoin-dev?=
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>,
Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <35CCF69C-D8FB-4E4E-BF58-FB61D07D60FB@petertodd.org>
X-Server-Quench: 5e907a79-3af2-11e5-b398-002590a15da7
X-AuthReport-Spam: If SPAM / abuse - report it at:
http://www.authsmtp.com/abuse
X-AuthRoute: OCd2Yg0TA1ZNQRgX IjsJECJaVQIpKltL GxAVKBZePFsRUQkR
bgdMdgYUGUATAgsB AmMbWVZeVFp7WGc7 aQ5PbARZfE1LQQRt
U1dNRFdNFUssBhh9 Wm98MhlycA1FcDBx Z0BlXj5eCU16chd6
S1NXRDsEeGZhPWUC AkNRfx5UcAFPdx8U a1UrBXRDAzANdhEy
HhM4ODE3eDlSNhEd aQYLNl8UWlsQVjA7 XRNKFD4zHFMMWyQ0
KVQ6KkQRB0YWNkkp YxMLXVUTMFkUNgxb EglTG2dcKlUATixj
EQJfUAYAC3VXRSBX AVsuAhJJDTxOMgAA
X-Authentic-SMTP: 61633532353630.1023:706
X-AuthFastPath: 0 (Was 255)
X-AuthSMTP-Origin: 24.114.75.173/465
X-AuthVirus-Status: No virus detected - but ensure you scan with your own
anti-virus system.
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW
autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Consensus fork activation thresholds: Block.nTime
vs median time vs block.nHeight
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Development 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: Tue, 04 Aug 2015 21:47:17 -0000
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
On 4 August 2015 16:02:53 GMT-04:00, "Jorge Timón via bitcoin-dev" <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>One thing I've noticed there seems to be disagreement on is whether
>miners' upgrade confirmation (aka voting) is necessary for
>uncontroversial hardforks or not.
To be clear, without a strong supermajority of miner support the fork risks attack. Requiring 95% approval - which is actually just a 50% majority vote as the majority can squelch the minority - is an obvious minimum safety requirement.
Another option is Hearn's proposal of using centralised checkpoints to override PoW consensus; obviously that raises serious questions, including legal issues.
For forks without miner approval miners have a number of options to defeat them. For instance, they can make their own fork with a new consensus algorithm that requires miners to prove they're attacking the unwanted chain - Garzik's recent 2MB blocks proposal is a hilarious, and probably accidental, example of such a design, with the original Bitcoin protocol rules having the effect of attacking the Garzik 2MB chain.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQE9BAEBCAAnIBxQZXRlciBUb2RkIDxwZXRlQHBldGVydG9kZC5vcmc+BQJVwS7F
AAoJEMCF8hzn9Lnc47AH/3926JLE4Rn9Fil+wvfxhfmBqIm0wtfStPDAqsQMDIbh
kbxOw/Mai/AbqNUkYUWvoM2ZfJ/JNkA6HA977CE6huT1ozYVz8TJQmcqN/p1QXfX
w1559UsXXop2fepY1dbnyBUwB6w6VwBrfj3awYkJsblgcdHrEsAesYeAHphAkwL/
kxQ0b+QmttaDCSK76hNloKVcN7AczdCSw1pux2rzmsG9zkwWJrIqR/prAO1nuk9Y
LgQUCvYkZiMmMD8kNx9ZVRG2Y951uLS6594Qy6ZoAMAdA6QxNsP4qyE7s8M2HAon
WjdS0UqTRyJuDVqpNav6WX4jTllK/UuHRUAOmBmYaRs=
=0cKq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
|
