📅 Original date posted:2016-02-07
📝 Original message:Is it me or did Gavin ignore Yifu's direct questions? In case you missed it
Gavin --
~
"We can look at the adoption of the last major Bitcoin core release to
guess how long it might take people to upgrade. 0.11.0 was released on 12
July, 2015. Twenty eight days later, about 38% of full nodes were running
that release. Three months later, about 50% of the network was running that
release, and six months later about 66% of the network was running some
flavor of 0.11."
On what grounds do you think it is reasonable to assume that this update
will roll out 6x faster than previous data suggested, as oppose to your own
observation of 66% adoption in 6 month. or do you believe 38% node
upgrade-coverage (in 28 days ) on the network for a hard fork is good
enough?
There are no harm in choosing a longer grace period but picking one short
as 28 days you risk on alienating the nodes who do not upgrade with the
aggressive upgrade timeline you proposed.
~~
When Gavin writes "Responding to "28 days is not long enough" :
I keep seeing this claim made with no evidence to back it up. As I said, I
surveyed several of the biggest infrastructure providers and the btcd lead
developer and they all agree "28 days is plenty of time."
For individuals... why would it take somebody longer than 28 days to either
download and restart their bitcoind, or to patch and then re-run (the patch
can be a one-line change MAX_BLOCK_SIZE from 1000000 to 2000000)?"
~~
Isn't Yifu's comment, evidence, the very best sort of evidence, it isn't
propositional a priori logic, but empirical evidence that. As for why
people take longer, who knows, we simply know from passed experience that
it in fact does take longer.
It's extremely frustrating to read Gavin's comments, it's hard to believe
he is engaging in earnest discussion.
On Sun, Feb 7, 2016 at 4:01 PM, Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On Sunday, February 07, 2016 2:16:02 PM Gavin Andresen wrote:
> > On Sat, Feb 6, 2016 at 3:46 PM, Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev <
> > bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > > On Saturday, February 06, 2016 5:25:21 PM Tom Zander via bitcoin-dev
> wrote:
> > > > If you have a node that is "old" your node will stop getting new
> > > > blocks. The node will essentially just say "x-hours behind" with "x"
> > > > getting larger every hour. Funds don't get confirmed. etc.
> > >
> > > Until someone decides to attack you. Then you'll get 6, 10, maybe more
> > > blocks confirming a large 10000 BTC payment. If you're just a normal
> end
> > > user (or perhaps an automated system), you'll figure that payment is
> good
> > > and irreversibly hand over the title to the house.
> >
> > There will be approximately zero percentage of hash power left on the
> > weaker branch of the fork, based on past soft-fork adoption by miners
> (they
> > upgrade VERY quickly from 75% to over 95%).
>
> I'm assuming there are literally ZERO miners left on the weaker branch.
> The attacker in this scenario simply rents hashing for a few days in
> advance
> to build his fake chain, then broadcasts the blocks to the unsuspecting
> merchant at ~10 block intervals so it looks like everything is working
> normal
> again. There are lots of mining rental services out there, and miners quite
> often do not care to avoid selling hashrate to the highest bidder
> regardless
> of what they're mining. 10 blocks worth costs a little more than 250 BTC -
> soon, that will be 125 BTC.
>
> Luke
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
--
Steven Pine
(510) 517-7075
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20160207/3d005df7/attachment.html>;
Steven Pine [ARCHIVE] /
npub17t…kadm9
2023-06-07 17:48:45
in reply to nevent1q…94uj
Author Public Key
npub17t0q8zqty0mzjuk6t6jul40zvszs0jwds0kkxy3d8x5xef60073sckadm9Published at
2023-06-07 17:48:45Event JSON
{
"id": "1f1b011d05f0d2767e0494a3cf96c2ff193f92e527db5489e9d288565ec80bf3",
"pubkey": "f2de03880b23f62972da5ea5cfd5e2640507c9cd83ed63122d39a86ca74f7fa3",
"created_at": 1686160125,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"299dc342b2928a854d3cdebebdfa1b5d7d113553560926ba6670328be5b1c1ce",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"9a2d89fbc2be6957bb0f0153d5b2a2c57fdada83dee267a308fac86d165f90d9",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"5a6d1f44482b67b5b0d30cc1e829b66a251f0dc99448377dbe3c5e0faf6c3803"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2016-02-07\n📝 Original message:Is it me or did Gavin ignore Yifu's direct questions? In case you missed it\nGavin --\n\n~\n\"We can look at the adoption of the last major Bitcoin core release to\nguess how long it might take people to upgrade. 0.11.0 was released on 12\nJuly, 2015. Twenty eight days later, about 38% of full nodes were running\nthat release. Three months later, about 50% of the network was running that\nrelease, and six months later about 66% of the network was running some\nflavor of 0.11.\"\n\nOn what grounds do you think it is reasonable to assume that this update\nwill roll out 6x faster than previous data suggested, as oppose to your own\nobservation of 66% adoption in 6 month. or do you believe 38% node\nupgrade-coverage (in 28 days ) on the network for a hard fork is good\nenough?\n\nThere are no harm in choosing a longer grace period but picking one short\nas 28 days you risk on alienating the nodes who do not upgrade with the\naggressive upgrade timeline you proposed.\n~~\n\nWhen Gavin writes \"Responding to \"28 days is not long enough\" :\n\nI keep seeing this claim made with no evidence to back it up. As I said, I\nsurveyed several of the biggest infrastructure providers and the btcd lead\ndeveloper and they all agree \"28 days is plenty of time.\"\n\nFor individuals... why would it take somebody longer than 28 days to either\ndownload and restart their bitcoind, or to patch and then re-run (the patch\ncan be a one-line change MAX_BLOCK_SIZE from 1000000 to 2000000)?\"\n\n~~\n\nIsn't Yifu's comment, evidence, the very best sort of evidence, it isn't\npropositional a priori logic, but empirical evidence that. As for why\npeople take longer, who knows, we simply know from passed experience that\nit in fact does take longer.\n\nIt's extremely frustrating to read Gavin's comments, it's hard to believe\nhe is engaging in earnest discussion.\n\nOn Sun, Feb 7, 2016 at 4:01 PM, Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev \u003c\nbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e On Sunday, February 07, 2016 2:16:02 PM Gavin Andresen wrote:\n\u003e \u003e On Sat, Feb 6, 2016 at 3:46 PM, Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev \u003c\n\u003e \u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \u003e \u003e On Saturday, February 06, 2016 5:25:21 PM Tom Zander via bitcoin-dev\n\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \u003e \u003e \u003e If you have a node that is \"old\" your node will stop getting new\n\u003e \u003e \u003e \u003e blocks. The node will essentially just say \"x-hours behind\" with \"x\"\n\u003e \u003e \u003e \u003e getting larger every hour. Funds don't get confirmed. etc.\n\u003e \u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e \u003e Until someone decides to attack you. Then you'll get 6, 10, maybe more\n\u003e \u003e \u003e blocks confirming a large 10000 BTC payment. If you're just a normal\n\u003e end\n\u003e \u003e \u003e user (or perhaps an automated system), you'll figure that payment is\n\u003e good\n\u003e \u003e \u003e and irreversibly hand over the title to the house.\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e There will be approximately zero percentage of hash power left on the\n\u003e \u003e weaker branch of the fork, based on past soft-fork adoption by miners\n\u003e (they\n\u003e \u003e upgrade VERY quickly from 75% to over 95%).\n\u003e\n\u003e I'm assuming there are literally ZERO miners left on the weaker branch.\n\u003e The attacker in this scenario simply rents hashing for a few days in\n\u003e advance\n\u003e to build his fake chain, then broadcasts the blocks to the unsuspecting\n\u003e merchant at ~10 block intervals so it looks like everything is working\n\u003e normal\n\u003e again. There are lots of mining rental services out there, and miners quite\n\u003e often do not care to avoid selling hashrate to the highest bidder\n\u003e regardless\n\u003e of what they're mining. 10 blocks worth costs a little more than 250 BTC -\n\u003e soon, that will be 125 BTC.\n\u003e\n\u003e Luke\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\n\n\n-- \nSteven Pine\n(510) 517-7075\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20160207/3d005df7/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "0c731c90baba4a87b02e839ab1fb9c5cef58be875e396b935d647108f1990fce756b498056851662280e74a74679aac16d56cfadfa238bc108ecb1f4ad318e2e"
}