📅 Original date posted:2017-03-26
📝 Original message:-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
On 03/26/2017 01:22 PM, Bryan Bishop via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 26, 2017 at 2:05 PM, Peter R via bitcoin-dev
> <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> <mailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>> wrote:
>
> With a tightening of the rule set, a hash power minority that has
> not upgraded will not produce a minority branch; instead they will
> simply have any invalid blocks they produce orphaned, serving as a
> wake-up call to upgrade.
>
> False. With bip9-based soft-fork-based activation of segwit, miner
> blocks will not be orphaned unless they are intentionally
> segwit-invalid (which they currently are not). If you have told
> miners otherwise, let me know.
Given the protocol requirements of the segwit proposal this is not the
case. A miner running pre-segwit code will produce blocks that no
segwit node will ever receive. It matters not whether these blocks
contain transactions that are invalidated by the soft fork. Despite
being valid to other pre-segwit nodes they will never be built upon by
the majority hash power once segwit activates.
At the same time, Peter's comment above is also incorrect. A "minority
branch" *is* a set of blocks that have been orphaned (the term orphan
being a misnomer, since these blocks of course have an ancestry all
the way to the genesis block). That's precisely what is implied by the
word "minority". So his description contradicts itself.
e
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)
iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJY2C6pAAoJEDzYwH8LXOFOf4gH/2e/euZ9bQxPKZyC7DN8us6T
R1R9f+JFFsU3Vo8HkcU028Ib4aF0IAELvAWrhpZfH6ixZV2c3CJoi53rMbPmJ/+H
Rlj0Qjc58mYpqosxyNoi0qPFZ2e3yCv+R5v9PQEeOdcGwXIr77Tij8lI1yu4uqHU
bqJ3BXJLFpvL5iXOLhbakeu2qVIHqJnb1/hQMNh6eNM794n+UT2T8You52xUkuTm
zJ+5CTQUiMNFE/HBWsbk8Vf3BTrM0sqMRTJzdr4VT1l+uOZn58BJJPFzLr2WeZww
klAB/wK5oExMNlKQVy6Rw9+uFx88qRTl5s7LwFASOxEZYJIjd36bBaoTdqfaB5U=
=pvlp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Eric Voskuil [ARCHIVE] /
npub1sg…ppx3c
2023-06-07 17:57:51
in reply to nevent1q…7jgu
Author Public Key
npub1sgs97fe0n9wehe6zw7drcxdz4cy9yt9pfqjv8gasz5jlk4zezc0quppx3cPublished at
2023-06-07 17:57:51Event JSON
{
"id": "2a2f35754842f50c48d5f41fcda6201f0e80da1e168872471f595d904a716369",
"pubkey": "82205f272f995d9be742779a3c19a2ae08522ca14824c3a3b01525fb5459161e",
"created_at": 1686160671,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"8f27b0f2ce427ef28fdd158930556a4af440f4d5d3a81eefc4fcbd02c81912c0",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"889e9c522f8d1636319da7b98c965041a9ef5eef6e4b178e9a39855244d596fa",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"08bb05e181e6c923b6bd3a69552d5ed716608f30a97d0ad12ffdd1b1c866f04a"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2017-03-26\n📝 Original message:-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----\nHash: SHA256\n\nOn 03/26/2017 01:22 PM, Bryan Bishop via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e On Sun, Mar 26, 2017 at 2:05 PM, Peter R 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 With a tightening of the rule set, a hash power minority that has \n\u003e not upgraded will not produce a minority branch; instead they will \n\u003e simply have any invalid blocks they produce orphaned, serving as a \n\u003e wake-up call to upgrade.\n\u003e \n\u003e False. With bip9-based soft-fork-based activation of segwit, miner \n\u003e blocks will not be orphaned unless they are intentionally\n\u003e segwit-invalid (which they currently are not). If you have told\n\u003e miners otherwise, let me know.\n\nGiven the protocol requirements of the segwit proposal this is not the\ncase. A miner running pre-segwit code will produce blocks that no\nsegwit node will ever receive. It matters not whether these blocks\ncontain transactions that are invalidated by the soft fork. Despite\nbeing valid to other pre-segwit nodes they will never be built upon by\nthe majority hash power once segwit activates.\n\nAt the same time, Peter's comment above is also incorrect. A \"minority\nbranch\" *is* a set of blocks that have been orphaned (the term orphan\nbeing a misnomer, since these blocks of course have an ancestry all\nthe way to the genesis block). That's precisely what is implied by the\nword \"minority\". So his description contradicts itself.\n\ne\n-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----\nVersion: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)\n\niQEcBAEBCAAGBQJY2C6pAAoJEDzYwH8LXOFOf4gH/2e/euZ9bQxPKZyC7DN8us6T\nR1R9f+JFFsU3Vo8HkcU028Ib4aF0IAELvAWrhpZfH6ixZV2c3CJoi53rMbPmJ/+H\nRlj0Qjc58mYpqosxyNoi0qPFZ2e3yCv+R5v9PQEeOdcGwXIr77Tij8lI1yu4uqHU\nbqJ3BXJLFpvL5iXOLhbakeu2qVIHqJnb1/hQMNh6eNM794n+UT2T8You52xUkuTm\nzJ+5CTQUiMNFE/HBWsbk8Vf3BTrM0sqMRTJzdr4VT1l+uOZn58BJJPFzLr2WeZww\nklAB/wK5oExMNlKQVy6Rw9+uFx88qRTl5s7LwFASOxEZYJIjd36bBaoTdqfaB5U=\n=pvlp\n-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----",
"sig": "cce397091dc593f3bb6ffa121be25b0b2fdcf3c062c583bbcf1d1f4fd2edf297aae976aafbd7319ed6b4d9c77b3ecae5c0fcab228fd581e1ceb8983ee5765313"
}