📅 Original date posted:2017-09-15
📝 Original message:Thanks for this link. From my reading though, it seems that only
soft-forks that attempt to freeze funds are problematic on ethereum.
>From the article:
> The soft fork creates a new and fundamentally different class of
> transactions in contrast with those that currently exist within the
> protocol. Currently, transactions either complete successfully and
> cause a state transition, or run into an exception, in which case
> state is reverted but the maximum possible gas is still charged. With
> the soft fork, transactions which interact with a DAO will not fit
> within these two classes: they will fail execution but no gas will be
> charged. This must inevitably be the case in any soft fork that aims
> to freeze the stolen funds;
So in the general case ethereum can still soft-fork I think...
On 09/15/2017 04:19 AM, Andrew Quentson wrote:
> From my understanding, the blockchain can be designed in such a way as
> to make soft-forks be impossible or at least impractical due to attack
> vectors.
>
> http://hackingdistributed.com/2016/06/28/ethereum-soft-fork-dos-vector/
>
> Ethereum, for example, can't soft-fork. They have to always hardfork.
>
> On 13 September 2017 at 10:50, Dan Libby via bitcoin-dev
> <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> <mailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>> wrote:
>
> Hi, I am interested in the possibility of a cryptocurrency software
> (future bitcoin or a future altcoin) that strives to have immutable
> consensus rules.
>
> The goal of such a cryptocurrency would not be to have the latest and
> greatest tech, but rather to be a long-term store of value and to offer
> investors great certainty and predictability... something that markets
> tend to like. And of course, zero consensus rule changes also means
> less chance of new bugs and attack surface remains the same, which is
> good for security.
>
> Of course, hard-forks are always possible. But that is a clear split
> and something that people must opt into. Each party has to make a
> choice, and inertia is on the side of the status quo. Whereas
> soft-forks sort of drag people along with them, even those who oppose
> the changes and never upgrade. In my view, that is problematic,
> especially for a coin with permanent consensus rule immutability as a
> goal/ethic.
>
> As I understand it, bitcoin soft-forks always rely on anyone-can-spend
> transactions. If those were removed, would it effectively prevent
> soft-forks, or are there other possible mechanisms? How important are
> any-one-can spend tx for other uses?
>
> More generally, do you think it is possible to programmatically
> avoid/ban soft-forks, and if so, how would you go about it?
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> <mailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
> <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>;
>
>
--
Dan Libby
Open Source Consulting S.A.
Santa Ana, Costa Rica
http://osc.co.cr
phone: 011 506 2204 7018
Fax: 011 506 2223 7359
Dan Libby [ARCHIVE] /
npub1hm…jk43d
2023-06-07 18:06:03
in reply to nevent1q…a8fx
Author Public Key
npub1hm38d5dwxdq5zxlnv2qdfk3flecptqwl7g7u62ja0tr92d0hmrusejk43dPublished at
2023-06-07 18:06:03Event JSON
{
"id": "c25201c5bcf07605f74eeb27b49e869dff612644f886a9fbf6594b7a7073d987",
"pubkey": "bee276d1ae3341411bf36280d4da29fe701581dff23dcd2a5d7ac65535f7d8f9",
"created_at": 1686161163,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"91d6ec02934746fcbd43013df1b7508b93012bf45b887171ea0d0bbaa6dee098",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"fe5f9bb3894335a85b5eaf599d9d7366a00381f80aa6a32b32186f03950e5fde",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"4505072744a9d3e490af9262bfe38e6ee5338a77177b565b6b37730b63a7b861"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2017-09-15\n📝 Original message:Thanks for this link. From my reading though, it seems that only\nsoft-forks that attempt to freeze funds are problematic on ethereum.\n\n\u003eFrom the article:\n\u003e The soft fork creates a new and fundamentally different class of \n\u003e transactions in contrast with those that currently exist within the \n\u003e protocol. Currently, transactions either complete successfully and\n\u003e cause a state transition, or run into an exception, in which case\n\u003e state is reverted but the maximum possible gas is still charged. With\n\u003e the soft fork, transactions which interact with a DAO will not fit\n\u003e within these two classes: they will fail execution but no gas will be\n\u003e charged. This must inevitably be the case in any soft fork that aims\n\u003e to freeze the stolen funds;\n\nSo in the general case ethereum can still soft-fork I think...\n\n\nOn 09/15/2017 04:19 AM, Andrew Quentson wrote:\n\u003e From my understanding, the blockchain can be designed in such a way as\n\u003e to make soft-forks be impossible or at least impractical due to attack\n\u003e vectors.\n\u003e \n\u003e http://hackingdistributed.com/2016/06/28/ethereum-soft-fork-dos-vector/\n\u003e \n\u003e Ethereum, for example, can't soft-fork. They have to always hardfork. \n\u003e \n\u003e On 13 September 2017 at 10:50, Dan Libby via bitcoin-dev\n\u003e \u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e \u003cmailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \n\u003e Hi, I am interested in the possibility of a cryptocurrency software\n\u003e (future bitcoin or a future altcoin) that strives to have immutable\n\u003e consensus rules.\n\u003e \n\u003e The goal of such a cryptocurrency would not be to have the latest and\n\u003e greatest tech, but rather to be a long-term store of value and to offer\n\u003e investors great certainty and predictability... something that markets\n\u003e tend to like. And of course, zero consensus rule changes also means\n\u003e less chance of new bugs and attack surface remains the same, which is\n\u003e good for security.\n\u003e \n\u003e Of course, hard-forks are always possible. But that is a clear split\n\u003e and something that people must opt into. Each party has to make a\n\u003e choice, and inertia is on the side of the status quo. Whereas\n\u003e soft-forks sort of drag people along with them, even those who oppose\n\u003e the changes and never upgrade. In my view, that is problematic,\n\u003e especially for a coin with permanent consensus rule immutability as a\n\u003e goal/ethic.\n\u003e \n\u003e As I understand it, bitcoin soft-forks always rely on anyone-can-spend\n\u003e transactions. If those were removed, would it effectively prevent\n\u003e soft-forks, or are there other possible mechanisms? How important are\n\u003e any-one-can spend tx for other uses?\n\u003e \n\u003e More generally, do you think it is possible to programmatically\n\u003e avoid/ban soft-forks, and if so, how would you go about it?\n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e \u003cmailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e\n\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e \u003chttps://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\u003e\n\u003e \n\u003e \n\n\n-- \nDan Libby\n\nOpen Source Consulting S.A.\nSanta Ana, Costa Rica\nhttp://osc.co.cr\nphone: 011 506 2204 7018\nFax: 011 506 2223 7359",
"sig": "0912e5bd86de84c444dd03a61b4e2d75cf5e5bdb0efcaec1125b6e5b3406abcf29f13298e33a66995f225b9471cea6ba88829b372ece1a58721c13323c9ce596"
}