arno/bitcoinbook
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/bitcoinbook/bitcoinbook synced 2024-11-23 00:28:14 +00:00
Code Issues Releases Wiki Activity

Edited ch10.asciidoc with Atlas code editor

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
judymcconville@roadrunner.com 2017-05-02 11:53:02 -07:00
parent 5421b836d5
commit 3a2e723412
1 changed files with 3 additions and 3 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

6
ch10.asciidoc
View File

@ -901,14 +901,14 @@ Undoubtedly, a serious consensus attack would erode confidence in bitcoin in the
[[consensus_changes]]
=== Changing the Consensus Rules
The rules of consensus determine the validity of transactions and blocks. These rules are the basis for collaboration between all bitcoin nodes and are responsible for the convergence of all local perspectives into a single consistent blockchain across the entire network.
((("mining and consensus", "changing consensus rules", id="MACrule10")))((("consensus", "changing consensus rules", id="Crule10")))The rules of consensus determine the validity of transactions and blocks. These rules are the basis for collaboration between all bitcoin nodes and are responsible for the convergence of all local perspectives into a single consistent blockchain across the entire network.
While the consensus rules are invariable in the short term and must be consistent across all nodes, they are not invariable in the long term. In order to evolve and develop the bitcoin system, the rules have to change from time to time to accommodate new features, improvements or bug fixes. Unlike traditional software development, however, upgrades to a consensus system are much more difficult and require coordination between all the participants.
[[hard_forks]]
==== Hard Forks
In <<forks>> we looked at how the bitcoin network may briefly diverge, with two parts of the network following two different branches of the blockchain for a short time. We saw how this process occurs naturally, as part of the normal operation of the network and how the network reconverges on a common blockchain after one or more blocks are mined.
((("forks", "changing consesnsus rules", id="forks10a")))In <<forks>> we looked at how the bitcoin network may briefly diverge, with two parts of the network following two different branches of the blockchain for a short time. We saw how this process occurs naturally, as part of the normal operation of the network and how the network reconverges on a common blockchain after one or more blocks are mined.
There is another scenario in which the network may diverge into following two chains: a change in the consensus rules. This type of fork is called a _hard fork_, because after the fork the network does not reconverge onto a single chain. Instead, the two chains evolve independently. Hard forks occur when part of the network is operating under a different set of consensus rules than the rest of the network. This may occur because of a bug or because of a deliberate change in the implementation of the consensus rules.
@ -998,7 +998,7 @@ Technical debt:: Because soft forks are more technically complex than a hard for
Validation relaxation:: Unmodified clients see transactions as valid, without evaluating the modified consensus rules. In effect, the unmodified clients are not validating using the full range of consensus rules, as they are blind to the new rules. This applies to NOP-based upgrades, as well as other soft fork upgrades.
Irreversible upgrades:: Because soft forks create transactions with additional consensus constraints, they become irreversible upgrades in practice. If a soft fork upgrade were to be reversed after being activated, any transactions created under the new rules could result in a loss of funds under the old rules. For example, if a CLTV transaction is evaluated under the old rules, there is no timelock constraint and it can be spent whenever. Therefore, critics contend that a failed soft fork that had to be reversed because of a bug would almost certainly lead to loss of funds.
Irreversible upgrades:: Because soft forks create transactions with additional consensus constraints, they become irreversible upgrades in practice. If a soft fork upgrade were to be reversed after being activated, any transactions created under the new rules could result in a loss of funds under the old rules. For example, if a CLTV transaction is evaluated under the old rules, there is no timelock constraint and it can be spent whenever. Therefore, critics contend that a failed soft fork that had to be reversed because of a bug would almost certainly lead to loss of funds.((("", startref="forks10a")))((("", startref="MACrule10")))((("", startref="Crule10")))
[[softforksignaling]]
=== Soft Fork Signaling with Block Version