đź“… Original date posted:2015-11-15
đź“ť Original message:> On Sunday, November 15, 2015 1:02:33 AM Peter R via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>> A group of us have been exploring this “meta-cognition” idea with Bitcoin
>> Unlimited. For example, Bitcoin Unlimited can be (optionally) made to
>> automatically fork to the longest chain if it “gets stuck” and can neither
>> prove that a block is valid nor that the block is invalid.
>
> This situation isn't something that can be ignored and simply moved past. If
> you can't determine the validity of a block, you also cannot process its
> results correctly. Taking for example the BDB/LevelDB issue, the result was
> that BDB failed to accept further changes to the UTXO set. Unless the UTXO set
> could be updated correctly, there is no way to even attempt to validate the
> next block or any new transactions.
Great point, Luke!
Indeed, whether the program can or cannot continue after a Type 1 consensus mismatch depends on the specifics of the situation and exactly how the code was written. But I agree: there are cases where the program *can’t* continue. In those cases it would halt. This would require manual intervention to fix but avoids the problem of potential double-spends during the fork event. This would be preferable to knowingly causing a fork.
Peter
Peter R [ARCHIVE] /
npub1vx…lz2gn
2023-06-07 17:44:56
in reply to nevent1q…0c7u
Author Public Key
npub1vxzlqg5f7ykqr3hheqxdcqe35q02a8rr2mez30sjaldhlvu4hsvsqlz2gnPublished at
2023-06-07 17:44:56Event JSON
{
"id": "4dfd031a4196332b8a3ad8999430ea6ad6adc0f436e5694d1087b8cff1d15c0f",
"pubkey": "6185f02289f12c01c6f7c80cdc0331a01eae9c6356f228be12efdb7fb395bc19",
"created_at": 1686159896,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"1210ebe800165dee2ccc94a44db020accc39bb94ffc3ab7a1da78a399947e644",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"01035c8d4f36e2da204f68b55659ebba8458c5a00e7f6a1d2ae1e3c6dd3d0abe",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"5a6d1f44482b67b5b0d30cc1e829b66a251f0dc99448377dbe3c5e0faf6c3803"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-11-15\n📝 Original message:\u003e On Sunday, November 15, 2015 1:02:33 AM Peter R via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e\u003e A group of us have been exploring this “meta-cognition” idea with Bitcoin\n\u003e\u003e Unlimited. For example, Bitcoin Unlimited can be (optionally) made to\n\u003e\u003e automatically fork to the longest chain if it “gets stuck” and can neither\n\u003e\u003e prove that a block is valid nor that the block is invalid.\n\u003e \n\u003e This situation isn't something that can be ignored and simply moved past. If \n\u003e you can't determine the validity of a block, you also cannot process its \n\u003e results correctly. Taking for example the BDB/LevelDB issue, the result was \n\u003e that BDB failed to accept further changes to the UTXO set. Unless the UTXO set \n\u003e could be updated correctly, there is no way to even attempt to validate the \n\u003e next block or any new transactions.\n\nGreat point, Luke! \n\nIndeed, whether the program can or cannot continue after a Type 1 consensus mismatch depends on the specifics of the situation and exactly how the code was written. But I agree: there are cases where the program *can’t* continue. In those cases it would halt. This would require manual intervention to fix but avoids the problem of potential double-spends during the fork event. This would be preferable to knowingly causing a fork. \n\nPeter",
"sig": "25dd9058d5a44ef0336eaca79bd564cb36807ea71f887cbd28ebaeab3970defda5eff14c7e4f464081215d4b526f6864cd9ceaa974653685d61859d9328781c3"
}