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
|
Return-Path: <wilczynski.dan.dw@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DEE952C
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 18 Sep 2017 06:40:21 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-lf0-f43.google.com (mail-lf0-f43.google.com
[209.85.215.43])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5902CD3
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 18 Sep 2017 06:40:21 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-lf0-f43.google.com with SMTP id a18so6861002lfl.13
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 17 Sep 2017 23:40:21 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025;
h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to;
bh=fkpb2MuVhSWr92BD2tGHVAhj6ZAaXNuETFOjkN22Y8U=;
b=f0dnYtwXlTHmgunJBOZJUdgjl3Cy+wbNrkda9Mf3SZeYGxRGBo7+HiaqkuK8K8g2R7
fXyNsE5ia7rIKfWd8C8vhjIJFS3JWXCHhK3JQgCRbpL0+vv6QoJ7DEzGg5MZcs9yTwKW
EoqMmp+X1q9u2Wn6jiKDZWjakJpSzxEgTUAufVqh27ykAClwgesewqxDP4ZOpk6zxbJK
B/GPwxQyJVoD8OA+TKQx92WvlahRe0wusRryvE1ZWl7WNLz4N/mTxO+j8X0Ymp5UYZi9
NKxj4A8AKmV2LazeA0otzITufh6DupMtlIqWy5KvQ9/mqJQj3jB5hl5pSuxEm4HBfJ7q
3L3g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to;
bh=fkpb2MuVhSWr92BD2tGHVAhj6ZAaXNuETFOjkN22Y8U=;
b=ZlFdaBKP+av9Luoej9Tya6r3x7uGlUALmCgkxVoIDsLazRnqaJbHoT99nnReo0lDJy
TEPNqzeCu5ZqaCPhaZI2rCRQLATjYew9g33hetdcrS1R2YYdr+sB0xxoM5yB2vIUPjux
IRTSSSV7vPI21GbLxLhpxgziBx+/LcKxLzttiaKu8ch4kWeNDhZb4UvoxJCzbRIOhjRE
6r2tM0LR1bEdtS86C6R9wnPeotj1unxJQIFBv6LInttXT5mn07mazQzAMTt1a85oBHAu
4vRD5gM9I0phYdzMRAiUDWdJKPV/BdcPXH0KuTmrhlu9ccICO7e3nhM8TKc4HMgJGLta
fBWQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AHPjjUhjQgpZlsEG3Z/9Y6PjlDwEYJezueDOTFaLSxXqJ60+cRZarSXe
6H594mOyQB0FFW+4exeAh9FPV7yD+WwtWHDjK90RLFE6
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AOwi7QD+pU7NFwtdtkbKrNDONKuwk7EOFua3ugl5wKL13DWqtU0ToiO+fAntorRYo7U8ZwxUJW1On3EA3QsOPCS+dyA=
X-Received: by 10.25.212.209 with SMTP id l200mr2596475lfg.13.1505716819214;
Sun, 17 Sep 2017 23:40:19 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.46.81.2 with HTTP; Sun, 17 Sep 2017 23:40:18 -0700 (PDT)
From: Daniel Wilczynski <wilczynski.dan.dw@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2017 16:10:18 +0930
Message-ID: <CAOC2iYWUX8cbUE=wqNUBOLY2egcO3d16=UzDn97uxGPthgFckg@mail.gmail.com>
To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.4 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,
DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM
autolearn=disabled version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 19 Sep 2017 01:16:54 +0000
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] hypothetical: Could soft-forks be prevented?
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: Mon, 18 Sep 2017 06:40:22 -0000
Hi Dan.
What might be better aim is to have built in wipeout protection? In
softfork scenario this would protect a majority threatening a minority
with a wipeout if they do not opt in to some soft-fork consensus
change.
This could be partly done done by having automoated consensus critical
checkpoints, for example at 100 blocks deep. Maybe there are better
ways?
This would in effect turn softforks into hardforks.
Regards,
Daniel Wilczynski
|
