š
Original date posted:2015-12-04
š Original message:Overall, good idea.
Is there a write-up somewhere describing in detail the 'accidental selfish
mining' problem that this mitigates? I think a link in the BIP to a fuller
description of the problem and how validation-skipping makes it go away
would be helpful.
RE: which bit to use: the draft versionbits BIP and BIP101 use bit 30; to
avoid confusion, I think it would be better to use bit 0.
I agree with Jannes Faber, behavior with respect to SPV clients should be
to only tell them about fully validated headers. And I also agree that
immediately relaying full-proof-of-work blocks before validation (with an
indication that they haven't been fully validated) is a good idea, but that
discussion didn't reach consensus when I brought it up two years ago (
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/3580).
--
--
Gavin Andresen
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20151204/ad61bf07/attachment.html>;
Gavin Andresen [ARCHIVE] /
npub1s4ā¦d44kw
2023-06-07 17:45:31
in reply to nevent1qā¦z48s
Author Public Key
npub1s4lj77xuzcu7wy04afcr487f0r3za0f8n2775xrpkld2sv639mjqsd44kwPublished at
2023-06-07 17:45:31Event JSON
{
"id": "eab36e141f4419bb50488f493a3c6e7f4a270c9a70cdfaff3040cdcd51596964",
"pubkey": "857f2f78dc1639e711f5ea703a9fc978e22ebd279abdea1861b7daa833512ee4",
"created_at": 1686159931,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"15a16192f3a989cab67f2ac617a2f0c8ac441d823789f63c6c25a5e7f0b7696c",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"bfd5bad5e761c9b51afb81f7c0aa7517315fe8f53d96e63d153e716527cbb096",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"cd7a2cba8fb58a6131210185f2257692f56b666fb24bf9cf016ca8aaa4a4ae01"
]
],
"content": "š
Original date posted:2015-12-04\nš Original message:Overall, good idea.\n\nIs there a write-up somewhere describing in detail the 'accidental selfish\nmining' problem that this mitigates? I think a link in the BIP to a fuller\ndescription of the problem and how validation-skipping makes it go away\nwould be helpful.\n\nRE: which bit to use: the draft versionbits BIP and BIP101 use bit 30; to\navoid confusion, I think it would be better to use bit 0.\n\nI agree with Jannes Faber, behavior with respect to SPV clients should be\nto only tell them about fully validated headers. And I also agree that\nimmediately relaying full-proof-of-work blocks before validation (with an\nindication that they haven't been fully validated) is a good idea, but that\ndiscussion didn't reach consensus when I brought it up two years ago (\nhttps://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/3580).\n\n\n-- \n--\nGavin Andresen\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20151204/ad61bf07/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "6ca6a2c6b88aff79c92d8ea44b52e7043bdce8e2942106526026942d37f26fd0d32c63e0f9b9e1e36560a867423d1314c371a50c6ddacdae9f3039f65580b4fc"
}