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
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
|
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 EF76D14C0
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 28 Sep 2015 13:28:20 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from outmail149101.authsmtp.com (outmail149101.authsmtp.com
[62.13.149.101])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25627204
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 28 Sep 2015 13:28:19 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-c237.authsmtp.com (mail-c237.authsmtp.com [62.13.128.237])
by punt15.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id t8SDSImG059234;
Mon, 28 Sep 2015 14:28:18 +0100 (BST)
Received: from savin.petertodd.org (75-119-251-161.dsl.teksavvy.com
[75.119.251.161]) (authenticated bits=128)
by mail.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id t8SDSEv0009377
(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO);
Mon, 28 Sep 2015 14:28:17 +0100 (BST)
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2015 09:28:14 -0400
From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
To: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20150928132814.GB4829@savin.petertodd.org>
References: <20150927185031.GA20599@savin.petertodd.org>
<CA+w+GKRCVr-9TVk66utp7xLRgTxNpxYoj3XQE-6y_N8JS6eO6Q@mail.gmail.com>
<CABsx9T0XW_jGYhNw6t29AZXz1TxjuHjfEvsbdF5Ji7LUkFo4Ow@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="MfFXiAuoTsnnDAfZ"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CABsx9T0XW_jGYhNw6t29AZXz1TxjuHjfEvsbdF5Ji7LUkFo4Ow@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
X-Server-Quench: c79b39dc-65e4-11e5-9f76-002590a135d3
X-AuthReport-Spam: If SPAM / abuse - report it at:
http://www.authsmtp.com/abuse
X-AuthRoute: OCd2Yg0TA1ZNQRgX IjsJECJaVQIpKltL GxAVKBZePFsRUQkR
aQdMdAoUC1AEAgsB AmMbWlBeUlV7WGs7 bA9PbARUfEhLXhtr
VklWR1pVCwQmRRRi cn1rFBlydwxFf3k+ bERmWD4IW00odk8p
EVNSEDgCeGZhPWUC WRZfcR5UcAFPdx8U a1N6AHBDAzANdhEy
HhM4ODE3eDlSNhEd ZgwRYklaTUsTGjkt DzojJWtyVWYlag4Q
CzsNCWI9OWsvH38T H2poMf9/
X-Authentic-SMTP: 61633532353630.1024:706
X-AuthFastPath: 0 (Was 255)
X-AuthSMTP-Origin: 75.119.251.161/587
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] Let's deploy BIP65 CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY!
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: Mon, 28 Sep 2015 13:28:21 -0000
--MfFXiAuoTsnnDAfZ
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 09:01:02AM -0400, Gavin Andresen wrote:
> I think three things need to happen:
>=20
> 1) Stop pretending that "everyone must agree to make consensus rule
> changes." "Rough consensus" is what we've always gone with, and is good
> enough.
>=20
> 2) Mr. Todd (or somebody) needs to write up a risk/benefit security
> tradeoff analysis doo-hickey document and publish it. I'm reasonably
> confident that the risks to SPV nodes can be mitigated (e.g. by deploying
> mempool-only first, before the soft fork rolls out), but as somebody who
> has only been moderately paying attention, BETTER COMMUNICATION is needed.
> What should SPV wallet authors be doing right now, if anything? Once the
> soft fork starts to roll out or activates, what do miners need to be aware
> of? SPV wallet authors?
Do you have such a document for your BIP101? That would save me a lot of
time, and the need for that kind of document is significantly higher
with BIP101 anyway.
Re: mempool, CLTV-using transactions are non-standard and are not
relayed in all Bitcoin Core releases. (see my pull-req #5000 -
Discourage NOPs reserved for soft-fork upgrades - for why) I believe
that meets your suggestion of deploying mempool-only first.
--=20
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
0000000000000000032420ad2987adc954df855f9ae10cf608e911b431f640e0
--MfFXiAuoTsnnDAfZ
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----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==
=Fc47
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--MfFXiAuoTsnnDAfZ--
|
