rich1.0npub17ty4mumkv43w8wtt0xsz2jypck0gvw0j8xrcg6tpea25z2nh7meqf4qgydhttps://nostr.ae/npub17ty4mumkv43w8wtt0xsz2jypck0gvw0j8xrcg6tpea25z2nh7meqf4qgydnjumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2015-06-16 📝 Original message:> > "How do you plan to deal with security & incident response for the > duration you describe where you will have control while you are deploying > the unilateral hard-fork and being in sole maintainership control?" > How do we plan to deal with security & incident response - exactly the same way as before. Remember that XT is basically Core plus a few patches. Gavin and myself are both on the bitcoin-security mailing list and have been for years. Both of us have experience of responding to very serious and tight-deadline security incidents, for example, the accidental bdb hard fork and (in my case) when we discovered that Android phones had so little entropy in them that different devices were actually generating the same keys! That one required co-ordinated crash rollouts of multiple wallets across the Bitcoin ecosystem because there was a parallel investigation into key collisions taking place in an open forum and they were not far from discovering the truth about how badly the Android RNG was broken (I knew because at the time I had access to the Google internal Android bug tracker). I organised the whole thing. So I think we'll manage. But I don't expect things to exist in a state of disjointness for very long. XT will rebase on top of Core and follow it's releases for as long as there seems to be interest in bigger blocks and as long as I have the time/energy/interest. If the >1mb chain wins then Core will have to adopt the new ruleset or simply stop being relevant, as it will have no users. That wouldn't make much sense. Now, there have been concerns raised that a hard fork is unbelievably risky, the sky will fall, the value of Bitcoin will drop to zero, etc. I don't believe it's anywhere near that risky. The patch Gavin is working on requires both a miner majority *and* also has a date trigger in it. Much like previous forks, in fact. So nobody should be taken by surprise if/when bigger blocks appear, because it will have been known for a long time beforehand that there was sufficiently strong consensus, there will have been messages printed to the node logs, announcements in various places and so on. Does that help clear things up? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150616/abf446cc/attachment.html>