summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorErik Aronesty <earonesty@gmail.com>2017-04-05 22:27:34 -0400
committerbitcoindev <bitcoindev@gnusha.org>2017-04-06 02:27:36 +0000
commit7ee4fe6bf5b15ed09bba7d5b977d9a08ecf1d7c1 (patch)
tree34e9d66e201182a21005bd0555365e1c91365d82
parent47b9a8333004c95cc4a0b400a8d7397c92cdb5ec (diff)
downloadpi-bitcoindev-7ee4fe6bf5b15ed09bba7d5b977d9a08ecf1d7c1.tar.gz
pi-bitcoindev-7ee4fe6bf5b15ed09bba7d5b977d9a08ecf1d7c1.zip
Re: [bitcoin-dev] Segwit2Mb - combined soft/hard fork - Request For Comments
-rw-r--r--b9/7385e3813fe92faeb88a3dad74faa1f4d5e868178
1 files changed, 178 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/b9/7385e3813fe92faeb88a3dad74faa1f4d5e868 b/b9/7385e3813fe92faeb88a3dad74faa1f4d5e868
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..7c66212a0
--- /dev/null
+++ b/b9/7385e3813fe92faeb88a3dad74faa1f4d5e868
@@ -0,0 +1,178 @@
+Return-Path: <earonesty@gmail.com>
+Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
+ [172.17.192.35])
+ by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F2D8B98C
+ for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
+ Thu, 6 Apr 2017 02:27:36 +0000 (UTC)
+X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
+Received: from mail-qt0-f178.google.com (mail-qt0-f178.google.com
+ [209.85.216.178])
+ by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 52FB71BD
+ for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
+ Thu, 6 Apr 2017 02:27:36 +0000 (UTC)
+Received: by mail-qt0-f178.google.com with SMTP id i34so26172235qtc.0
+ for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
+ Wed, 05 Apr 2017 19:27:36 -0700 (PDT)
+DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025;
+ h=mime-version:reply-to:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id
+ :subject:to:cc;
+ bh=GhKpY1Ec2eC42m6/iTj1bH02JGCIueD+lkTYiilRkAQ=;
+ b=oVr+HQFWAZF6yXkEP3q3XjeI/DmLplkeWjg4Ew6O5iGIpMmHhoMmecO1JlMrRgirQV
+ 1Pa2yKk7I7CkVVU7jd7T0pIU/sXpunaUdJ74pVp4uTr1h8Epc/13Vylrewnrwok51EED
+ w8MuTnnmLDRWnKcrexax6Q+mTtlllL+kpRntdI1IjjzcdT2sVZhZkPj97AuYK2o2sJ+1
+ utHo9QZ53bI2g6sdn9qPE+QMLKcaZUqvNyWlc7+qDRvw9gc1hzFlkit2ID0i6QRPJWi/
+ Mh9jHOT48jy5YUlXIHIZbjEDg6obEK6m2Ze85X/iF6kxiWvOjRSAb1scOLRvQL7GEqr6
+ l5hw==
+X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
+ d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
+ h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:reply-to:in-reply-to:references
+ :from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc;
+ bh=GhKpY1Ec2eC42m6/iTj1bH02JGCIueD+lkTYiilRkAQ=;
+ b=uXeDMJy1Ml3aG6m60RvAkFoRJKB2h0H7giNaoLm5PYAPTjTNvNNJ4zZEHYZbTA95IU
+ 26OzUkGAGQFTNM7pcg3cW6VE5PGBn1W5sU7spJ0/eNwryb5U7xMoEd1+LdgyRDFbuhte
+ 92HQrYYxkaKscWG1czd5qS0ficdaWmzFl6COqsT8kUZ2L1l3n4l5Vv7pQaqmjkG56qI3
+ sLV+tDlKhL5nJcDpuhlt2dVHUOdsFDBWz27msIQwsn+ApQSV8zGbp/0hoHpDU8EcD8cn
+ JOGVArLVYBRcwIiWfFQPBB1qaedbjY2bVGoh6UBeEbqirO2ju5Bi7AjFoUxiTBNiuhzl
+ 6TsA==
+X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H2lj7WQxZO6/tN7bPkKzRHAb4O6lnNF4g9pmFeN4qLRbqDVHkS9xvKnGt2PbeBAuY/YI9NiP/LxBKCF+w==
+X-Received: by 10.200.43.17 with SMTP id 17mr30006874qtu.199.1491445655421;
+ Wed, 05 Apr 2017 19:27:35 -0700 (PDT)
+MIME-Version: 1.0
+Received: by 10.200.55.113 with HTTP; Wed, 5 Apr 2017 19:27:34 -0700 (PDT)
+Received: by 10.200.55.113 with HTTP; Wed, 5 Apr 2017 19:27:34 -0700 (PDT)
+Reply-To: erik@q32.com
+In-Reply-To: <CADJgMztpmcC_rv_oKYn_jRhLzx2FbtxgPUshcPDJpQVZYBcJzw@mail.gmail.com>
+References: <CAKzdR-oN6tGvGSb04_awCf=Jsf3wgKJN5xUhCr8G2D2W9YgJww@mail.gmail.com>
+ <CADJgMztpmcC_rv_oKYn_jRhLzx2FbtxgPUshcPDJpQVZYBcJzw@mail.gmail.com>
+From: Erik Aronesty <earonesty@gmail.com>
+Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 22:27:34 -0400
+Message-ID: <CAJowKgLUrMR9XN2Sb9ZuXCZx3K8Jy65pOOYGVhYeisszPoWLdA@mail.gmail.com>
+To: Btc Drak <btcdrak@gmail.com>,
+ Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
+Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c0342a7e4ce3054c7640d0
+X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
+ DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, HTML_MESSAGE,
+ RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,
+ RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
+X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
+ smtp1.linux-foundation.org
+X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 06 Apr 2017 02:29:17 +0000
+Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Segwit2Mb - combined soft/hard fork - Request For
+ Comments
+X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
+X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
+Precedence: list
+List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
+List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
+ <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
+List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
+List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
+List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
+List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
+ <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
+X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2017 02:27:37 -0000
+
+--001a11c0342a7e4ce3054c7640d0
+Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
+
+I personally appreciate the minimal changes, and often encourage
+development to be done this way - when it needs to be released quickly.
+But does this need to be released quickly?
+
+- maybe the proposal should be renamed segwit 8mb and be discussed solely
+in terms of block weights.
+
+- a high consensus hard fork is probably preferable to a low consensus soft
+fork, however there is nothing to indicate that segwit as it stands isnt
+already very high consensus except for a handful of pool operators
+protecting fee income.
+
+- miners who currently object to segwit while pretending to like larger
+blocks will find some excuse to object to this too.
+
+- Given the challenges miners seem to have in flipping bits, I expect any
+fork that requires 95pct hash power to be vaporware.
+
+On Apr 3, 2017 11:02 AM, "Btc Drak via bitcoin-dev" <
+bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
+
+> On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 10:09 PM, Sergio Demian Lerner via bitcoin-dev <
+> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
+>
+>> The hard-fork is conditional to 95% of the hashing power has approved the
+>> segwit2mb soft-fork and the segwit soft-fork has been activated (which
+>> should occur 2016 blocks after its lock-in time)
+>>
+>
+> Miners signalling they have upgraded by flipping a bit in the nVersion
+> field has little relevance in a hard fork. If 100% of the hash power
+> indicates they are running this proposal, but the nodes don't upgrade, what
+> will happen?
+>
+> For the record, I actually talk a lot about hard forks with various
+> developers and am very interested in the research that Johnson in
+> particular is pioneering. However, I have failed to understand your point
+> about 95% miner signalling in relation to a hard fork, so I am eagerly
+> awaiting your explanation.
+>
+> _______________________________________________
+> bitcoin-dev mailing list
+> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
+> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
+>
+>
+
+--001a11c0342a7e4ce3054c7640d0
+Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
+Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
+
+<div dir=3D"auto"><div dir=3D"auto">I personally appreciate the minimal cha=
+nges, and often encourage development to be done this way - when it needs t=
+o be released quickly.=C2=A0 But does this need to be released quickly?<br>=
+</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">- maybe the proposal sh=
+ould be renamed segwit 8mb and be discussed solely in terms of block weight=
+s.</div><div dir=3D"auto"><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">- a=
+ high consensus hard fork is probably preferable to a low consensus soft fo=
+rk, however there is nothing to indicate that segwit as it stands isnt alre=
+ady very high consensus except for a handful of pool operators protecting f=
+ee income. =C2=A0</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br><span style=3D"font-family:san=
+s-serif">- miners who currently object to segwit while pretending to like l=
+arger blocks will find some excuse to object to this too.</span><br></div><=
+div dir=3D"auto"><span style=3D"font-family:sans-serif"><br></span></div><d=
+iv dir=3D"auto"><span style=3D"font-family:sans-serif">-=C2=A0</span><span =
+style=3D"font-family:sans-serif">Given the challenges miners seem to have i=
+n flipping bits, I expect any fork that requires 95pct hash power to be vap=
+orware.</span></div></div></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=
+=3D"gmail_quote">On Apr 3, 2017 11:02 AM, &quot;Btc Drak via bitcoin-dev&qu=
+ot; &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-de=
+v@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt; wrote:<br type=3D"attribution"><blockqu=
+ote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc s=
+olid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div cla=
+ss=3D"gmail_quote">On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 10:09 PM, Sergio Demian Lerner v=
+ia bitcoin-dev <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.li=
+nuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.<wbr>linuxfoundation=
+.org</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"ma=
+rgin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"lt=
+r"><div>The hard-fork is conditional to 95% of the hashing power has approv=
+ed the segwit2mb soft-fork and the segwit soft-fork has been activated (whi=
+ch should occur 2016 blocks after its lock-in time)</div></div></blockquote=
+><div><br></div><div>Miners signalling they have upgraded by flipping a bit=
+ in the nVersion field has little relevance in a hard fork. If 100% of the =
+hash power indicates they are running this proposal, but the nodes don&#39;=
+t upgrade, what will happen?<br></div><div><br></div><div>For the record, I=
+ actually talk a lot about hard forks with various developers and am very i=
+nterested in the research that Johnson in particular is pioneering. However=
+, I have failed to understand your point about 95% miner signalling in rela=
+tion to a hard fork, so I am eagerly awaiting your explanation.</div></div>=
+</div></div>
+<br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
+bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
+<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.=
+<wbr>linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
+<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" =
+rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.<wbr>org=
+/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-<wbr>dev</a><br>
+<br></blockquote></div></div>
+
+--001a11c0342a7e4ce3054c7640d0--
+