rich1.0npub1e46n428mcyfwznl7nlsf6d3s7rhlwm9x3cmkuqzt3emmdpadmkaqqjxmcuhttps://nostr.ae/npub1e46n428mcyfwznl7nlsf6d3s7rhlwm9x3cmkuqzt3emmdpadmkaqqjxmcunjumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2021-02-22 📝 Original message:Hmm, indeed, I may have missed that you can skip the headers issues by not persisting them, though there are other follow-on effects that are concerning and I think still make my point valid. A node feeding you invalid headers (used to be) cause for a ban - is that information still persisted? More importantly, nodes on both sides of the fork need to find each other. There’s not a great way to do that without forking the address database, DNS seeds and defining a new protocol magic. Matt > On Feb 22, 2021, at 00:16, Anthony Towns <aj at erisian.com.au> wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 19, 2021 at 12:48:00PM -0500, Matt Corallo via bitcoin-dev wrote: >> It was pointed out to me that this discussion is largely moot as the >> software complexity for Bitcoin Core to ship an option like this is likely >> not practical/what people would wish to see. >> Bitcoin Core does not have infrastructure to handle switching consensus >> rules with the same datadir - after running with uasf=true for some time, >> valid blocks will be marked as invalid, > > I don't think this is true? With the current proposed bip8 code, > lockinontimeout=true will cause headers to be marked as invalid, and > won't process the block further. If a node running lockinontimeout=true > accepts the header, then it will apply the same consensus rules as a > lockinontimeout=false node. > > I don't think an invalid header will be added to the block index at all, > so a node restart should always cleanly allow it to be reconsidered. > > The test case in > > https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/19573/commits/bd8517135fc839c3332fea4d9c8373b94c8c9de8 > > tests that a node that had rejected a chain due to lockinontimeout=true > will reorg to that chain after being restarted as a byproduct of the way > it tests different cases (the nodes set a new startheight, but retain > their lockinontimeout settings). > > > (I think with the current bip8 code, if you switch from > lockinontimeout=false to lockinontimeout=true and the tip of the current > most work chain is after the timeoutheight and did not lockin, then you > will continue following that chain until a taproot-invalid transaction > is inclued, rather than immediately reorging to a shorter chain that > complies with the lockinontimeout=true rules) > > Cheers, > aj >