<p dir="ltr">The SPV clients should be checking node versions. This is for wallet authors to implement. End-users should just stay current with their chosen wallet software.<br>
</p>
<div class="gmail_quote">On 3 Jul 2015 10:40 pm, odinn <odinn.cyberguerrilla@riseup.net> wrote:<br type='attribution'><blockquote class="quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<div>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----<br />
Hash: SHA1<br />
<br />
Raystonn,<br />
<br />
How would an average SPV wallet user know anything about this at all?<br />
They might not know it is even happening, or if they have some idea<br />
that something is wrong, then they wouldn't know what to do.<br />
<br />
Say you use Electrum, some older version like 1.9. Electrum's current<br />
version is 2.3.3. Or say you use a slightly older version like 2.2.<br />
In any event, how is an end user possibly going to know which of<br />
Electrum's (or any other SPV wallet's) versions are "the minimum<br />
required for safety?" (so as to know they would need to upgrade<br />
because problems)? Is this just something where it's really down to<br />
community announcements on websites and reddits and the like?<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
On 07/03/2015 10:17 PM, Raystonn wrote:<br />
> SPV clients are at risk in scenarios like this. We should encourage<br />
> them to check node versions against the minimum required for<br />
> safety. This check should be upgraded when new BIPs go into effect.<br />
> It won't help against malicious nodes. But it will help in cases<br />
> such as today's.<br />
> <br />
> On 3 Jul 2015 8:17 pm, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com> wrote:<br />
> <br />
> On Sat, Jul 4, 2015 at 3:11 AM, Raystonn <raystonn@hotmail.com><br />
> wrote:<br />
>> We need some analysis on why this has happened. It appears the<br />
> larger hashrate is violating BIP66. Thus it appears the network<br />
> is rejecting this BIP, though potentially accidentally. If this is<br />
> an accident, how is such a large portion of hashrate forking, and<br />
> what can we do to avoid this in the future?<br />
> <br />
> A near majority of the hashrate on the network appears to be SPV<br />
> mining.<br />
> <br />
> Btcnuggets was a non-upgraded miner that produced an invalid block <br />
> after the lock in and f2pool and antpool have been extending it. <br />
> Fortunately their extension contains no transactions (an artifact<br />
> of SPV mining). Obviously a complete understanding is going to<br />
> take some time; though I would note that this general failure mode<br />
> was one we were aware of and is part of the reason the treshold is<br />
> so high.<br />
> <br />
> <br />
> <br />
> _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing<br />
> list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org <br />
> <a href="https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br />
> <br />
<br />
- -- <br />
<a href="http://abis.io">http://abis.io</a> ~<br />
"a protocol concept to enable decentralization<br />
and expansion of a giving economy, and a new social good"<br />
<a href="https://keybase.io/odinn">https://keybase.io/odinn</a><br />
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----<br />
Version: GnuPG v1<br />
<br />
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJVl3HCAAoJEGxwq/inSG8CXXIH/0s8o09UwRld+upM2pdAovMu<br />
1SBCg/JeK3jXvqJDjyAbYe22WbnW8ykrZdujo1MFGuoZWbgrrSXo581lpyCy3O6c<br />
SZYfAJee4eILzBl4MOwiAImcJBE3zOBCKT/DDaD1Qc8XvX6ReWJFYZgHsp/5F/BL<br />
VlwVV9505V3X2G+y+3XOPwLggCu6m0MkRgeUjNTwdn+j6Yg6/NjJbS+YDDgjZ9dM<br />
y3+uGA9Ek0bCLwjceUh8xAEwb+QUJrJgrNIo1vjuy+NRl18s1rUSx1YGTRkAD8eV<br />
spdGTmXClx/phNnsR072hsqYRSj0CzhV8cQnEAh3ZmB4/RMhcxeNDmGw4rFNwD4=<br />
=71aR<br />
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----<br />
</div>
</div>
</blockquote></div>