BUIP058 Dynamic checkpoints Proposer: freetrader Submitted on: 2017-05-19 Status: draft
Add a feature which allows dynamic addition and removal of non-hardcoded
Checkpoints denote blocks that must be present in a valid chain. A
checkpoint is a tuple (chain_height, block_hash) indicating that the
block at that height must always have the given hash.
Currently, there are only some hardcoded checkpoints in
src/chainparams.cpp (not frequently updated).
To allow more flexible, persistent protection of a chain against
re-organization , at the discretion of the operator.
This could be particularly useful in a hard fork scenario such as the
very contentious “breaking of the 1MB barrier”.
Having an advanced user option to add checkpoints saves the operator
from having to use ‘invalidateblock’ as a way of fighting attacker
re-org blocks, essentially saving effort and reducing chance of costly
Since additional checkpoints may act to block re-organizations to a
longer valid chain with more proof-of-work, this feature should be
considered as an expert tool, probably only to be used by operators of
An RPC call interface shall be added to add and remove dynamic
Whenever a dynamic checkpoint is added or removed, the active chain
shall be re-evaluated for compliance and if necessary, a re-organization
performed in an attempt to achieve compliance with the stipulated
The dynamic checkpoints shall be recorded in a human-readable checkpoint
data file (e.g. checkpoints.csv) whenever the list changes.
At startup, the client shall read this file, if present, and add any
checkpoints from there to its list of built-in checkpoints used for
The client shall abort startup if the checkpoint data file is malformed
(see Notes). If the file is not present, it shall proceed using only the
built-in (hardcoded) checkpoints.
The RPC interface does not need to be specially exposed through the GUI
It shall not be possible to dynamically remove built-in checkpoints.
A checkpoint data file is malformed if it is syntactically invalid, or
if it contains the following semantic problems:
There have been a number of suggestions for potential names of the RPC
Adding: ‘mandateblock’, ‘requireblock’, ‘addcheckpoint’
The removal call names could be formed by pre-prending ‘un-’, or
substituting ‘remove’ for ‘add’.
I have intentionally not included some form of automatic addition of
checkpoints in the form discussed in , to keep this BUIP