📅 Original date posted:2015-12-04
📝 Original message:Gavin Andresen via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>
writes:
> Overall, good idea.
>
> Is there a write-up somewhere describing in detail the 'accidental selfish
> mining' problem that this mitigates? I think a link in the BIP to a fuller
> description of the problem and how validation-skipping makes it go away
> would be helpful.
>
> RE: which bit to use: the draft versionbits BIP and BIP101 use bit 30; to
> avoid confusion, I think it would be better to use bit 0.
Yes, BIP9 need to be adjusted (setting bit 30 means BIP9 counts it as a
vote against all softforks). BIP101 uses bits 0,1,2 AFAICT, so perhaps
start from the other end and use bit 29? We can bikeshed that later
though...
> I agree with Jannes Faber, behavior with respect to SPV clients should be
> to only tell them about fully validated headers.
A delicate balance. If we penalize these blocks too much, it's
disincentive to set the bit. Fortunately it's easy for SPV clients to
decide for themselves, I think?
Cheers,
Rusty.
Rusty Russell [ARCHIVE] /
npub1zw…hkhpx
2023-06-07 19:45:31
in reply to nevent1q…enx6
Author Public Key
npub1zw7cc8z78v6s3grujfvcv3ckpvg6kr0w7nz9yzvwyglyg0qu5sjsqhkhpxPublished at
2023-06-07 19:45:31Event JSON
{
"id": "77f9fe845c6da23521abd54f21166b5fd45d806c460f4c56e4ea705bafe0011e",
"pubkey": "13bd8c1c5e3b3508a07c92598647160b11ab0deef4c452098e223e443c1ca425",
"created_at": 1686159931,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"15a16192f3a989cab67f2ac617a2f0c8ac441d823789f63c6c25a5e7f0b7696c",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"eab36e141f4419bb50488f493a3c6e7f4a270c9a70cdfaff3040cdcd51596964",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"857f2f78dc1639e711f5ea703a9fc978e22ebd279abdea1861b7daa833512ee4"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-12-04\n📝 Original message:Gavin Andresen via bitcoin-dev \u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e\nwrites:\n\u003e Overall, good idea.\n\u003e\n\u003e Is there a write-up somewhere describing in detail the 'accidental selfish\n\u003e mining' problem that this mitigates? I think a link in the BIP to a fuller\n\u003e description of the problem and how validation-skipping makes it go away\n\u003e would be helpful.\n\u003e\n\u003e RE: which bit to use: the draft versionbits BIP and BIP101 use bit 30; to\n\u003e avoid confusion, I think it would be better to use bit 0.\n\nYes, BIP9 need to be adjusted (setting bit 30 means BIP9 counts it as a\nvote against all softforks). BIP101 uses bits 0,1,2 AFAICT, so perhaps\nstart from the other end and use bit 29? We can bikeshed that later\nthough...\n\n\u003e I agree with Jannes Faber, behavior with respect to SPV clients should be\n\u003e to only tell them about fully validated headers.\n\nA delicate balance. If we penalize these blocks too much, it's\ndisincentive to set the bit. Fortunately it's easy for SPV clients to\ndecide for themselves, I think?\n\nCheers,\nRusty.",
"sig": "f1ee8736a549a5c86b8570cd7dbac60f9e7a9451e4b8b5835adaabab04c37c18297d038216ca85d77e3b20153a56108bc7242952563ee9fb20858ee854014dfd"
}