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
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
|
Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <gronager@ceptacle.com>) id 1UFs4N-0002Fj-Rb
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Wed, 13 Mar 2013 20:14:39 +0000
X-ACL-Warn:
Received: from 2508ds5-oebr.1.fullrate.dk ([90.184.5.129]
helo=mail.ceptacle.com)
by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
id 1UFs4M-000588-OG for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Wed, 13 Mar 2013 20:14:39 +0000
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by mail.ceptacle.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41A7A2B97AA2;
Wed, 13 Mar 2013 21:14:31 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ceptacle.com
Received: from mail.ceptacle.com ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (server.ceptacle.private [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new,
port 10024)
with ESMTP id AAkN13VOATNV; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 21:14:26 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [10.0.1.67] (2508ds5-oebr.1.fullrate.dk [90.184.5.129])
by mail.ceptacle.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5CB4D2B97A8D;
Wed, 13 Mar 2013 21:14:26 +0100 (CET)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\))
From: Michael Gronager <gronager@ceptacle.com>
In-Reply-To: <20130313182805.GA7921@vps7135.xlshosting.net>
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 21:14:24 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <BEB68029-123A-4497-A59B-6487FE99742B@ceptacle.com>
References: <CABsx9T0xOpNpFG4bo7wjcMV8a_xtw_jrRx_fiSutX08yfP8P7Q@mail.gmail.com>
<20130313174838.GA22621@savin>
<2FCCE0F7-66B0-4EBE-8448-C5F0F92A75FF@ceptacle.com>
<20130313182805.GA7921@vps7135.xlshosting.net>
To: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499)
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
X-Headers-End: 1UFs4M-000588-OG
Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net,
Michael Gronager <gronager@ceptacle.com>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Blocksize and off-chain transactions
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 20:14:40 -0000
I hear consensus that at some point we need a hardfork (=3D=3D creating =
blocks that will not be accepted by <0.7 clients).
Miners generate block, hence they are the ones who should filter =
themselves though some consensus.=20
> But we cannot just drop support for old nodes. It is completely =
unreasonable to put the
> _majority_ of the network on a fork, without even as much as a =
discussion about it.
> "Oh, you didn't get the memo? The rules implemented in your client are =
outdated." - that
> is not how Bitcoin works: the network defines the rules.
Consensus was rapidly reached a day ago: To ensure the majority (all =
of?) the network could accept the blocks mined, and not just 0.8. This =
was the right decision! Too many was dependent on <=3D0.7
So, the question is not if, but when to do a hardfork. We need to define =
and monitor the % of nodes running different versions (preferably a =
weighted average - some nodes, like e.g. blockchain.info & mtgox serve =
many...). Once there was the rowit bitcoinstatus page - do we have =
another resource for this ?
Then the second question is how to ensure we don't create a fork again? =
Pieter (and others?) are of the opinion that we should mimic a 0.7 =
lock-object-starvation-reject-rule. I don't like this for three reasons:
1. I find it hard to ensure we have actually coined the bug precisely
2. I expect that similar issues will happen again
3. The current issue was between two versions, but in the future it =
could be between two implementations - then trying implement or even to =
coordinate strange rules becomes very unlikely.
Hence the scheme for "considerate mining" - it is the only scheme that =
guarantees 100% that no block are released that will not be accepted by =
a supermajority of the install base.
Another nice thing about it - it requires no development :)
So simply run in serial in front of all considerate miners nodes of =
different versions until a certain threshold of the install base is =
reached.
/M
|
