pull down to refresh

100 sats \ 4 replies \ @Murch 2h \ parent \ on: The asymmetric advantage of a BIP-110 fork bitcoin

Bitcoin Core has invalidateblock which you could use to render your node unable to consider the RDTS chain.

write
preview
0 sats \ 3 replies \ @optimism 2h

As I understand it, it works differently. But to be honest I only remember sipa's narration so i have to re-review code to actually be sure.

I'll do that tomorrow.

reply
100 sats \ 2 replies \ @Murch 1h

A checkpoint is a commitment to a specific block, invalidateblock rules out a specific block. Is it that what you mean?

However, if RDTS doubles down on their minority chaintip, invalidating the first block of that branch in the chain makes your node consider all descending blocks invalid, too.

reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @optimism 1h
However, if RDTS doubles down on their minority chaintip

I think the if is hardcoded to a block height / flag day, so this is not a question of if or even when anymore. It's a question of "what now"?

invalidating the first block of that branch

The one that applies to forking rules, yes.

I just re-read #5316 - must have been 11 years since I read that ugh - and now I think I'm confused about the mechanism. I remember that at one point the consensus was that invalidateblock would tag a block to lose to a competing block of lower weight, but now I am uncertain of where I read that.

reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Murch 1h

No, invalidateblock causes your node to treat the passed block as invalid. Naturally, any blocks succeeding it are therefore also treated as invalid. And IIRC, we ban peers that send us invalid blocks, so you also get rid of your RDTS peers all in one go.

reply