Checkpoint time? #4512

1. 
   zw commented at 8:07 am on July 12, 2014: contributor

   Not sure what the policy is with point releases. For the most recent version of @jgarzik’s torrent (2014-04-14) he used 295000, which I’d expect he chose according to the checkpoint.cpp criteria? Had a quick search for its block hash in case someone had already put it in their fork, but got no hits.
2. 
   jgarzik commented at 10:11 am on July 12, 2014: contributor

   The torrent needs updating, for sure. We do not typically bother with updating the checkpoints in lock step with the torrent.

   Ideally, checkpoints are an evil hack that we want to go away. Practically speaking, they save users a lot of CPU on initial sync.

3. 
   zw commented at 10:19 am on July 12, 2014: contributor

   From the thread, “the torrent will be updated once every few months, when the checkpoints are updated” suggests a relationship but I wasn’t sure exactly what to read into that. Wasn’t hassling you about the torrent; I raise the issue just because micha mentioned on IRC that just by noticing it was a bit overdue, he ended up inserting the previous checkpoint, leading me to think it’s not something people remember to do very often.
4. 
   sipa commented at 5:12 pm on July 12, 2014: member

   @jgarzik With headers-first, checkpoint-based sigcheck skipping can be replaced by a “do not verify signatures when buried beneath enough PoW”. We’ll need a weaker form of checkpoints still to prevent the “fill your memory with a ton of low-difficulty headers” attack, but those don’t need to lock in a specific chain.
5. laanwj closed this on Jul 28, 2014

   ---

6. MarcoFalke locked this on Sep 8, 2021

Contributors
zw jgarzik sipa