📅 Original date posted:2012-02-28
📝 Original message:On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 01:23:01PM -0500, Luke-Jr wrote:
> Has it been verified to make even rocconor's complicated transaction-based
> version impossible?
Yes, he tried it on testnet against a patched node.
> > The purpose of this mail is asking for support for adding this rule to
> > the protocol rules. If there is consensus this rule is the solution, I
> > hope pools and miners can agree to update their nodes without lengthy
> > coinbase-flagging procedure that would only delay a solution. So, who
> > is in favor?
>
> Can we do this in two steps? First, prefer blocks which don't break the rule;
> once 55%+ are confirmed to have upgraded, then it is safe to treat it as a
> hard rule.
I prefer to avoid this if possible, as it increases the size of the patch
significantly. In particular, it would require the discouragement-system to
be backported to whatever versions pools are running. The current proposal
only requires adding 6 lines of code.
--
Pieter
Pieter Wuille [ARCHIVE] /
npub1tj…jtl6r
2023-06-07 03:09:42
in reply to nevent1q…v9ls
Author Public Key
npub1tjephawh7fdf6358jufuh5eyxwauzrjqa7qn50pglee4tayc2ntqcjtl6rPublished at
2023-06-07 03:09:42Event JSON
{
"id": "9bb8756a03b73969955c04dd2a455eac9da872c807f7c3cd4d0b38db26f0383d",
"pubkey": "5cb21bf5d7f25a9d46879713cbd32433bbc10e40ef813a3c28fe7355f49854d6",
"created_at": 1686107382,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"431de1b2053f2297a5c4d8abb946e01d3f305001a64415bafb02369c2320d799",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"9f7449f9ebcf6dce3e0107ec10a88a77f2d45fd08f265b6e436a7c154f54fa9a",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"6ac6a519b554d8ff726a301e3daec0b489f443793778feccc6ea7a536f7354f1"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2012-02-28\n📝 Original message:On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 01:23:01PM -0500, Luke-Jr wrote:\n\u003e Has it been verified to make even rocconor's complicated transaction-based \n\u003e version impossible?\n\nYes, he tried it on testnet against a patched node.\n\n\u003e \u003e The purpose of this mail is asking for support for adding this rule to\n\u003e \u003e the protocol rules. If there is consensus this rule is the solution, I\n\u003e \u003e hope pools and miners can agree to update their nodes without lengthy\n\u003e \u003e coinbase-flagging procedure that would only delay a solution. So, who\n\u003e \u003e is in favor?\n\u003e \n\u003e Can we do this in two steps? First, prefer blocks which don't break the rule; \n\u003e once 55%+ are confirmed to have upgraded, then it is safe to treat it as a \n\u003e hard rule.\n\nI prefer to avoid this if possible, as it increases the size of the patch\nsignificantly. In particular, it would require the discouragement-system to\nbe backported to whatever versions pools are running. The current proposal\nonly requires adding 6 lines of code.\n\n-- \nPieter",
"sig": "c6b256bf95e7f43feaa33748ece835922bb92ee4286ca9059309528bd76733c8d5836f4ebfd19757e7e116ffc88797b16aa6672be8cebc34d54045b2a9a14218"
}