📅 Original date posted:2016-11-16
📝 Original message:On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 1:58 PM, Eric Voskuil via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Are checkpoints good now? Are hard forks okay now?
>
I think that at least one checkpoint should be included. The assumption is
that no 50k re-orgs will happen, and that assumption should be directly
checked.
Checkpointing only needs to happen during the headers-first part of the
download.
If the block at the BIP-65 height is checkpointed, then the comparisons for
the other ones are automatically correct. They are unnecessary, since the
checkpoint protects all earlier block, but many people would like to be
able to verify the legacy chain.
This makes the change a soft-fork rather than a hard fork. Chains that
don't go through the checkpoint are rejected but no new chains are allowed.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20161116/da3702fc/attachment.html>;
Tier Nolan [ARCHIVE] /
npub1g6…sl5wd
2023-06-07 17:54:18
in reply to nevent1q…9pdz
Author Public Key
npub1g6vxlp4e0nyhs2dqxxcryztyf5f5hyuaq93nw4r87zcnv0sdsa0qqsl5wdPublished at
2023-06-07 17:54:18Event JSON
{
"id": "f27280409801a001e699ccad38e21aa6e562d8e2d4583c4f11229b09d76ecc23",
"pubkey": "46986f86b97cc97829a031b03209644d134b939d0163375467f0b1363e0d875e",
"created_at": 1686160458,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"50cde70d11f9c69cc787e52010ba0256918f920ad1f9811ad6566a1543ec1282",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"a5d5b0545d1001bcfc154f80e0b93838fef5598e35044c90527fbb6af774f76a",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"82205f272f995d9be742779a3c19a2ae08522ca14824c3a3b01525fb5459161e"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2016-11-16\n📝 Original message:On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 1:58 PM, Eric Voskuil via bitcoin-dev \u003c\nbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e Are checkpoints good now? Are hard forks okay now?\n\u003e\n\nI think that at least one checkpoint should be included. The assumption is\nthat no 50k re-orgs will happen, and that assumption should be directly\nchecked.\n\nCheckpointing only needs to happen during the headers-first part of the\ndownload.\n\nIf the block at the BIP-65 height is checkpointed, then the comparisons for\nthe other ones are automatically correct. They are unnecessary, since the\ncheckpoint protects all earlier block, but many people would like to be\nable to verify the legacy chain.\n\nThis makes the change a soft-fork rather than a hard fork. Chains that\ndon't go through the checkpoint are rejected but no new chains are allowed.\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20161116/da3702fc/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "a17b09a51a7f9467c5c1807363b20ec6677a53000dad71bae2ddc1e18bf032edc4199a4fb72ea43d985d4d4e34c0cf9ffffe8e50aad1fd5340558c25b80cd760"
}