bitcoin/bips
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/bitcoin/bips.git synced 2025-05-26 12:10:14 +00:00
Code Issues Releases Wiki Activity

BIP99: Drop missing reference, fix formatting

Browse Source 
Co-authored-by: Murch <murch@murch.one>
This commit is contained in:
Torprius 2025-04-30 18:36:45 +02:00 committed by Murch
parent 74fc5b92b0
commit 7ab94f8be4
No known key found for this signature in database
GPG Key ID: 7BA035CA5B901713
1 changed files with 16 additions and 25 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

41
bip-0099.mediawiki
View File

@ -84,7 +84,7 @@ which - being accidental - obviously doesn't need a deployment plan.
====11/12 March 2013 Chain Fork====
There is a precedent of an accidental consensus fork at height 225430.
Without entering into much detail (see [2]), the situation was different from
Without entering into much detail (see <ref name="bip-50">https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0050.mediawiki</ref>), the situation was different from
what's being described from the alternative implementation risks (today alternative implementation
still usually rely in different degrees on Bitcoin Core trusted proxies, which
is very reasonable considering the lack of a complete libconsensus).
@ -144,13 +144,13 @@ unnecessary.
Fundamental disagreements and controversies are part of social
systems, like the one defined as the human participants in the Bitcoin
network. Without judging the motivation of the rule discrepancies or
what rules were in place first, we're defining schism[1] hardforks as
what rules were in place first, we're defining schism<ref name="schism">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schism</ref> hardforks as
those in which - for whatever reason - users are consciously going to validate 2
different sets of consensus rules. Since they will validate different
rulesets, they will end up following 2 different chains for at least
some time, maybe forever.
One possible result observed in the past[non_proportional_inflatacoin_fork]
One possible result observed in the past
is that one of the chains rapidly disappears, but nothing indicates
that this must always be the case.
@ -170,7 +170,7 @@ maybe mc(bitcoinA) + mc(bitcoinB) = 0,
...
Schism hardforks have been compared to one type of altcoins called
"spinoffs"[spinoffs] that distribute all or part of its initial seigniorage to
"spinoffs"<ref name="spinoffs">https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=563972.0</ref> that distribute all or part of its initial seigniorage to
bitcoin owners at a given block height.
This is very disruptive and hopefully will never be needed. But if
@ -274,7 +274,7 @@ The current miners' voting mechanism can be modified to allow for
changes to be deployed in parallel, the rejection of a concrete
softfork without getting locked for the deployment of the next one,
and also a more efficient use of the version field in block
headers [3]. BIP65 is expected to be deployed with the improved
headers<ref name="versionbits">https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0009.mediawiki</ref>. BIP65 is expected to be deployed with the improved
mechanism.
====Uncontroversial hardforks====
@ -315,18 +315,25 @@ softfork unnecessary.
==Code==
This BIP is complemented with a concrete code proposal[4] for an
This BIP is complemented with a concrete code proposal<ref name="timewarp">https://github.com/jtimon/bitcoin/tree/hardfork-timewarp-0.11</ref> for an
uncontroversial hardfork which acts as a precedent and removes the
perception that hardforks are impossible in Bitcoin. The deployment of
the proposal should not block any other potential hardforks (thus it
will required the version bits proposal[3] to be implemented). The
will required the version bits proposal<ref name="versionbits"/> to be implemented). The
change itself doesn't add much complexity to Bitcoin Core and is simple
enough that is trivial to apply to diverse implementations (that
currently can only use libbitcoinconsensus to validate script-related
rules). The change has been already widely tested in many altcoins.
The chosen consensus change is the fix of the timewarp attack
discovered and also fixed with a simple patch[5] by @ArtForz. This
discovered and also fixed with a simple patch<ref name"original-references">
Original References:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=114751.0,
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=43692.msg521772#msg521772;
Rebased patch:
https://github.com/freicoin/freicoin/commit/beb2fa54745180d755949470466cbffd1cd6ff14
</ref>
by @ArtForz. This
change has been deployed by most altcoins that made any minimally
meaningful change to bitcoin and thus can be considered somewhat
tested (in fact, most SHA256d altcoins that didn't implement it have
@ -340,23 +347,7 @@ worth of blocks).
==Footnotes==
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schism
[2] https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0050.mediawiki
[non_proportional_inflatacoin_fork] TODO missing link
[spinoffs] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=563972.0
[3] https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0009.mediawiki
[4] https://github.com/jtimon/bitcoin/tree/hardfork-timewarp-0.11
[5] Original references:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=114751.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=43692.msg521772#msg521772
Rebased patch:
https://github.com/freicoin/freicoin/commit/beb2fa54745180d755949470466cbffd1cd6ff14
<references />
==Attribution==