📅 Original date posted:2021-09-10
📝 Original message:On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 11:24:15AM -0700, Matt Corallo via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> I'm [...] suggesting [...] that the existing block producers each
> generate a new key, and we then only sign reorgs with *those* keys.
> Users will be able to set a flag to indicate "I want to accept sigs
> from either sets of keys, and see reorgs" or "I only want sigs from
> the non-reorg keys, and will consider the reorg keys-signed blocks
> invalid"
This seems pretty useful to me. I think we might want multiple sets of
keys:
0. No reorgs
1. Periodic reorgs of small to moderate depth for ongoing testing
without excessive disruption (e.g. the every 8 hours proposal). I think
this probably ought to be the default-default `-signet` in Bitcoin Core
and other nodes.
2. Either frequent reorgs (e.g. every block) or a webapp that generates
reorgs on demand to further reduce testing delays.
If we can only have two, I'd suggest dropping 0. I think it's already
the case that too few people test their software with reorgs.
-Dave
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20210910/4dc3cf45/attachment.sig>;
David A. Harding [ARCHIVE] /
npub16d…x4wrd
2023-06-07 22:58:53
in reply to nevent1q…ayns
Author Public Key
npub16dt55fpq3a8r6zpphd9xngxr46zzqs75gna9cj5vf8pknyv2d7equx4wrdPublished at
2023-06-07 22:58:53Event JSON
{
"id": "846c7ee4433ad6f88eb1b565da17019471468dc3d488ed85ad2ec340d82439c1",
"pubkey": "d3574a24208f4e3d0821bb4a69a0c3ae842043d444fa5c4a8c49c369918a6fb2",
"created_at": 1686178733,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"82e0f12d7f35467c29cd59e777250289c4cb4554dc58ceaaad44bec4613bd98c",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"0a013d55f8ad15215feaeb4a6e48fde36552248e8074949d7fb1197a1b3967ac",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"cd753aa8fbc112e14ffe9fe09d3630f0eff76ca68e376e004b8e77b687adddba"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2021-09-10\n📝 Original message:On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 11:24:15AM -0700, Matt Corallo via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e I'm [...] suggesting [...] that the existing block producers each\n\u003e generate a new key, and we then only sign reorgs with *those* keys.\n\u003e Users will be able to set a flag to indicate \"I want to accept sigs\n\u003e from either sets of keys, and see reorgs\" or \"I only want sigs from\n\u003e the non-reorg keys, and will consider the reorg keys-signed blocks\n\u003e invalid\"\n\nThis seems pretty useful to me. I think we might want multiple sets of\nkeys:\n\n0. No reorgs\n\n1. Periodic reorgs of small to moderate depth for ongoing testing\nwithout excessive disruption (e.g. the every 8 hours proposal). I think\nthis probably ought to be the default-default `-signet` in Bitcoin Core\nand other nodes.\n\n2. Either frequent reorgs (e.g. every block) or a webapp that generates\nreorgs on demand to further reduce testing delays.\n\nIf we can only have two, I'd suggest dropping 0. I think it's already\nthe case that too few people test their software with reorgs.\n\n-Dave\n-------------- next part --------------\nA non-text attachment was scrubbed...\nName: signature.asc\nType: application/pgp-signature\nSize: 833 bytes\nDesc: not available\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20210910/4dc3cf45/attachment.sig\u003e",
"sig": "39edc3c4d866a586654bee480ccb326f6749abd54b915f9b4e88067d92d226af5d65ca467176a8442bdd97e26aaeaf93d73b0ff892bd6270f3bdf4445576a636"
}