Gavin Andresen via bitcoin-dev <[email protected]> writes: > 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.
Yes, BIP9 need to be adjusted (setting bit 30 means BIP9 counts it as a vote against all softforks). BIP101 uses bits 0,1,2 AFAICT, so perhaps start from the other end and use bit 29? We can bikeshed that later though... > I agree with Jannes Faber, behavior with respect to SPV clients should be > to only tell them about fully validated headers. A delicate balance. If we penalize these blocks too much, it's disincentive to set the bit. Fortunately it's easy for SPV clients to decide for themselves, I think? Cheers, Rusty. _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
