📅 Original date posted:2017-11-06
📝 Original message:+1 to all of Peter Todd's comments
On Nov 6, 2017 11:50 AM, "Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev" <
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 01, 2017 at 05:48:27AM +0000, Devrandom via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>
> Some quick thoughts...
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Feedback is welcome on the draft below. In particular, I want to see if
> > there is interest in further development of the idea and also interested
> in
> > any attack vectors or undesirable dynamics.
> >
> > (Formatted version available here:
> > https://github.com/devrandom/btc-papers/blob/master/aux-pow.md )
> >
> > # Soft-fork Introduction of a New POW
>
> First of all, I don't think you can really call this a soft-fork; I'd call
> it a
> "pseudo-soft-fork"
>
> My reasoning being that after implementation, a chain with less total work
> than
> the main chain - but more total SHA256^2 work than the main chain - might
> be
> followed by non-supporting clients. It's got some properties of a
> soft-fork,
> but it's security model is definitely different.
>
> > ### Aux POW intermediate block
> >
> > Auxiliary POW blocks are introduced between normal blocks - i.e. the
> chain
> > alternates between the two POWs.
> > Each aux-POW block points to the previous normal block and contains
> > transactions just like a normal block.
> > Each normal block points to the previous aux-POW block and must contain
> all
> > transactions from the aux-POW block.
>
> Note how you're basically proposing for the block interval to be decreased,
> which has security implications due to increased orphan rates.
>
> > ### Heaviest chain rule change
> >
> > This is a semi-hard change, because non-upgraded nodes can get on the
> wrong
> > chain in case of attack. However,
>
> Exactly! Not really a soft-fork.
>
> --
> https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20171106/4c91278d/attachment.html>;
Paul Sztorc [ARCHIVE] /
npub10t…w9uu9
2023-06-07 20:07:24
in reply to nevent1q…0t67
Author Public Key
npub10tqt6wdc2neye0cxwyphtre6n5uccgur94khtqjdry9wxhrvywlq6w9uu9Published at
2023-06-07 20:07:24Event JSON
{
"id": "5adf6a84a33ff3aef4d38158a415afd7d346b6a4ea0a16d58029f305563320b0",
"pubkey": "7ac0bd39b854f24cbf067103758f3a9d398c23832d6d75824d190ae35c6c23be",
"created_at": 1686161244,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"712d2d7becdfc1f327fb6ef0f23f68f1502b313c103dbc4a20a9e4d0fb581029",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"35c3dffcd22627a5bcc6fb143732bbe455de0f0abc57d3d45386513bf7893965",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"daa2fc676a25e3b5b45644540bcbd1e1168b111427cd0e3cf19c56194fb231aa"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2017-11-06\n📝 Original message:+1 to all of Peter Todd's comments\n\nOn Nov 6, 2017 11:50 AM, \"Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev\" \u003c\nbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e On Wed, Nov 01, 2017 at 05:48:27AM +0000, Devrandom via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e\n\u003e Some quick thoughts...\n\u003e\n\u003e \u003e Hi all,\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e Feedback is welcome on the draft below. In particular, I want to see if\n\u003e \u003e there is interest in further development of the idea and also interested\n\u003e in\n\u003e \u003e any attack vectors or undesirable dynamics.\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e (Formatted version available here:\n\u003e \u003e https://github.com/devrandom/btc-papers/blob/master/aux-pow.md )\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e # Soft-fork Introduction of a New POW\n\u003e\n\u003e First of all, I don't think you can really call this a soft-fork; I'd call\n\u003e it a\n\u003e \"pseudo-soft-fork\"\n\u003e\n\u003e My reasoning being that after implementation, a chain with less total work\n\u003e than\n\u003e the main chain - but more total SHA256^2 work than the main chain - might\n\u003e be\n\u003e followed by non-supporting clients. It's got some properties of a\n\u003e soft-fork,\n\u003e but it's security model is definitely different.\n\u003e\n\u003e \u003e ### Aux POW intermediate block\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e Auxiliary POW blocks are introduced between normal blocks - i.e. the\n\u003e chain\n\u003e \u003e alternates between the two POWs.\n\u003e \u003e Each aux-POW block points to the previous normal block and contains\n\u003e \u003e transactions just like a normal block.\n\u003e \u003e Each normal block points to the previous aux-POW block and must contain\n\u003e all\n\u003e \u003e transactions from the aux-POW block.\n\u003e\n\u003e Note how you're basically proposing for the block interval to be decreased,\n\u003e which has security implications due to increased orphan rates.\n\u003e\n\u003e \u003e ### Heaviest chain rule change\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e This is a semi-hard change, because non-upgraded nodes can get on the\n\u003e wrong\n\u003e \u003e chain in case of attack. However,\n\u003e\n\u003e Exactly! Not really a soft-fork.\n\u003e\n\u003e --\n\u003e https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org\n\u003e\n\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e\n\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20171106/4c91278d/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "e12135bca5c31d08cdc7f1a15be921ff0463870021c3ac304f6a67e0972b03d1a64e94d84d503e17fddc6cdbbcd8212c6b26edec9d4495e0021e6e8979980ce7"
}