📅 Original date posted:2015-12-30
📝 Original message:Jonathan Toomim [j at toom.im] wrote:
>
> The generalized softfork method has the advantage of being merge-mined
That's an over-generalization. There are two kinds of soft-forks WRT mining,
those which:
1. involve new validation rules by data-hiding from non-upgraded modes
(e.g. extension blocks, generalized softfork)
2. involve NO new validation logic (e.g. P2SH)
Miners which are not validating transactions *should* be deprived of revenue,
because their role is transaction validation, not simply brute forcing sha256d.
So I'm very strongly against this "generalized softfork" idea -- I also don't
see how upgraded nodes and non-upgraded nodes can possibly end up with the same
UTXO set.
> > Once a chain is seen to be 6 or more blocks ahead of my chain tip, we should
> > enter "zombie mode" and refuse to mine or relay
>
> I like this method. However, it does have the problem of being voluntary. If
> nodes don't upgrade to a version that has the latent zombie gene long before a
> fork, then it does nothing.
Which is why it should be put into core long before forks. ;-)
--
Cheers, Bob McElrath
"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong."
-- H. L. Mencken
Bob McElrath [ARCHIVE] /
npub15n…8vrz4
2023-06-07 17:47:15
in reply to nevent1q…rrpp
Author Public Key
npub15n7zls4lcps7wksmdctal39neyact74jljgsq86ylkzfn4njk95sv8vrz4Seen on
wss://relay.nostr.bandPublished at
2023-06-07 17:47:15Event JSON
{
"id": "7cc3fec091d101275dce7cda50b5b88c8887681656cba30984ce2e7cb698d8e1",
"pubkey": "a4fc2fc2bfc061e75a1b6e17dfc4b3c93b85fab2fc91001f44fd8499d672b169",
"created_at": 1686160035,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"cff63604c5ea2135194b6bb6cc24978162ba68b9dba72176ba103744f1094f89",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"74ef5efea68a0d0ca7295921a14852d855bf254a7daa9412c4abaf838f7e377b",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"0ff56c09ef879c89ea04bfa2d5f5e0d96000ed6eaf5ac38e7b538a9d92767569"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-12-30\n📝 Original message:Jonathan Toomim [j at toom.im] wrote:\n\u003e \n\u003e The generalized softfork method has the advantage of being merge-mined\n\nThat's an over-generalization. There are two kinds of soft-forks WRT mining,\nthose which:\n\n1. involve new validation rules by data-hiding from non-upgraded modes\n (e.g. extension blocks, generalized softfork)\n2. involve NO new validation logic (e.g. P2SH)\n\nMiners which are not validating transactions *should* be deprived of revenue,\nbecause their role is transaction validation, not simply brute forcing sha256d.\n\nSo I'm very strongly against this \"generalized softfork\" idea -- I also don't\nsee how upgraded nodes and non-upgraded nodes can possibly end up with the same\nUTXO set.\n\n\u003e \u003e Once a chain is seen to be 6 or more blocks ahead of my chain tip, we should\n\u003e \u003e enter \"zombie mode\" and refuse to mine or relay\n\u003e \n\u003e I like this method. However, it does have the problem of being voluntary. If\n\u003e nodes don't upgrade to a version that has the latent zombie gene long before a\n\u003e fork, then it does nothing.\n\nWhich is why it should be put into core long before forks. ;-)\n\n--\nCheers, Bob McElrath\n\n\"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.\"\n -- H. L. Mencken",
"sig": "0b20da50e77a4894e21c1a4fa2e50cbb153cd624f0c11630c4b3a64998b638979f9b291694e8460392786a6c4dce355564c06fa426bf209f4eb3bf7974be42de"
}