Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7F661891 for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2017 01:36:53 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-qk0-f171.google.com (mail-qk0-f171.google.com [209.85.220.171]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 73A8410A for ; Wed, 21 Jun 2017 01:36:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-qk0-f171.google.com with SMTP id g83so71530120qkb.3 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2017 18:36:51 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=+ljytzOU/NIaxHN6HXqBOElj+xTpAtRms+Hhhe9BjEE=; b=QYOY7s4SQi1wPIPj08oNXduWAC40hi//hL0nHhmxElguE1r3xzjjW2xn2c/qXRbuF4 NEsgL7hIdOLdUsFe0aoLy8lKE+WhCLt6ixxh9JpcFSLH1JSxuYKgZnZDGAlEj0y9RXaf xR6sMWCsvuX/5ht3XH85zsYUnH4rn2WZ5Vjg8ycBPKm5qevajyTEZSAegsCxlorOfeNT KMhkea5cF2OQFGg2YOKIakJHXP2nqaQ5c6OcBd5fRrljcr+Ix/80X28YOnpXwoXIMC+R o3/HirE2Jw5mNaB13l615CsIl+TGwgDiYhTzR/UaOOQXgJomNxWI9krKT/O1Dfh2JzHN Tsmw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=+ljytzOU/NIaxHN6HXqBOElj+xTpAtRms+Hhhe9BjEE=; b=NuI1j7Kn9FzR5b2kKVeeKX4eLGYbNYJviKifYf48bqc9kx2yf0vABrXNyIz5KENXgx 4h8WiQbcFMidCgJAZPkBT4CrpAKSpuWdAM5+uoV9PwWtaHDWsS2wT6vPew8hLFO2cTal Y7t5mU1m4JqivaetsOhRoNUvZEqtYrGakqH5I1u+EiG9MptG12ThsF/mCq827MkEhuCj 5ri9x/rC/ggdzsRJWCqhy2MFfO9CF7FELSWcR0U+RoFXCdEFYDbSlsPx7rawoQQISrXe Hg9kTLi13JJKvuFoMtKScajeGIydkD/TOMPi1B2VzIvXtldD3mSEtLjqePYr0/0XcoNJ Y8Ng== X-Gm-Message-State: AKS2vOxLaFP5rCQAPG4v8E/I62k5mP4abRCvBfXNyxK5F4pEnQb8fN+9 xUIeZd2dAOJm5OhXGkfYCuuL+tWFdA== X-Received: by 10.55.75.71 with SMTP id y68mr730772qka.247.1498009010545; Tue, 20 Jun 2017 18:36:50 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: earonesty@gmail.com Received: by 10.237.54.100 with HTTP; Tue, 20 Jun 2017 18:36:49 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Erik Aronesty Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2017 21:36:49 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: jDTKXuISHz_NHzrj1BMvrUCUWnU Message-ID: To: Jacob Eliosoff Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a114a9c74f1adb805526e6601" X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, FREEMAIL_FROM, HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE 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: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 01:39:39 +0000 Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Miners forced to run non-core code in order to get segwit activated X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 01:36:53 -0000 --001a114a9c74f1adb805526e6601 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable # Jacob Eliosoff: > will start orphaning non-bit-1 blocks before Aug 1, and we avoid a split. Correct. There are 2 short activation periods in BIP91 either of which would avoid a split. # Gregory Maxwell: > unclear to me _exactly_ what it would need to implement to be consistent. This is the relevant pull req to core: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10444 Seems OK. It's technically running now on testnet5. I think it (or a -bip148 option) should be merged as soon as feasible. > previously debunked "XT" and "Classic" hysteria. apples vs oranges, imo. segwit is not a contentious feature. the "bundling" in segwit2x is, but that's not the issue here. the issue is we are indirectly requiring miners that strongly support segwit to install consensus protocol changes outside of bitcoin's standard reference. 80% of them have signaled they will do so. these are uncharted waters. On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 6:57 PM, Jacob Eliosoff via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > I could be wrong, but the latest BIP91 implementation (also included in > Segwit2x) cuts the activation period to 336 blocks (2.33 days). (This ha= s > been updated at https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0091. > mediawiki.) So if 80% of hashpower is actually running that code and > signaling on bit 4 by July 25 or so, then those 80+% will start orphaning > non-bit-1 blocks before Aug 1, and we avoid a split. > > There may still be a few non-bit-1 blocks that get orphaned after Aug 1, > because they're mined by old BIP141 nodes. But it seems like very few > miners won't be signaling either Segwit2x *or* BIP141 by then... > > Make sense? > > > On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 6:48 PM, Mark Friedenbach > wrote: > >> Why do you say activation by August 1st is likely? That would require an >> entire difficulty adjustment period with >=3D95% bit1 signaling. That se= ems a >> tall order to organize in the scant few weeks remaining. >> >> On Jun 20, 2017, at 3:29 PM, Jacob Eliosoff via bitcoin-dev < >> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: >> >> If segwit is activated before Aug 1, as now seems likely, there will be >> no split that day. But if activation is via Segwit2x (also likely), and= at >> least some nodes do & some don't follow through with the HF 3mo later >> (again, likely), agreed w/ Greg that *then* we'll see a split - probably= in >> Sep/Oct. How those two chains will match up and how the split will play >> out is anyone's guess... >> >> >> >> On Jun 20, 2017 6:16 PM, "Hampus Sj=C3=B6berg via bitcoin-dev" < >> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: >> >> > Ironically, it looks like most of the segwit2x signaling miners are >> > faking it (because they're not signaling segwit which it requires). >> > It'll be unfortunate if some aren't faking it and start orphaning >> > their own blocks because they are failing to signal segwit. >> >> Well, they're doing some kind of "pre-signaling" in the coinbase at the >> moment, because the segwit2x project is still in alpha-phase according t= o >> the timeline. They're just showing commitment. >> I'm sure they will begin signaling on version bit 4/BIP91 as well as >> actually running a segwit2x node when the time comes. >> >> >> > As far as prevent a chain split goes, all those things >> > (148/91/segwit2x(per today)) effectively guarantee a chainsplit-- so I >> > don't think that holds. >> >> Segwit2x/BIP91/BIP148 will orphan miners that do not run a Segwit2x (or >> BIP148) node, because they wouldn't have the new consensus rule of >> requiring all blocks to signal for segwit. >> I don't believe there would be any long lasting chainsplit though >> (because of the ~80% hashrate support on segwit2x), perhaps 2-3 blocks i= f >> we get unlucky. >> >> Hampus >> >> 2017-06-20 23:49 GMT+02:00 Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev < >> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>: >> >>> On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 3:44 PM, Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev >>> wrote: >>> > Because a large percentage of miners are indifferent, right now miner= s >>> have >>> > to choose between BIP148 and Segwit2x if they want to activate Segwit= . >>> >>> Miners can simply continuing signaling segwit, which will leave them >>> at least soft-fork compatible with BIP148 and BIP91 (and god knows >>> what "segwit2x" is since they keep changing the actual definition and >>> do not have a specification; but last I saw the near-term behavior the >>> same as BIP91 but with a radically reduced activation window, so the >>> story would be the same there in the near term). >>> >>> Ironically, it looks like most of the segwit2x signaling miners are >>> faking it (because they're not signaling segwit which it requires). >>> It'll be unfortunate if some aren't faking it and start orphaning >>> their own blocks because they are failing to signal segwit. >>> >>> I don't think the rejection of segwit2x from Bitcoin's developers >>> could be any more resolute than what we've already seen: >>> https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Segwit_support >>> >>> On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 5:22 PM, Mark Friedenbach via bitcoin-dev >>> wrote: >>> > I think it is very na=C3=AFve to assume that any shift would be tempo= rary. >>> > We have a hard enough time getting miners to proactively upgrade to >>> > recent versions of the reference bitcoin daemon. If miners interpret >>> > the situation as being forced to run non-reference software in order >>> > to prevent a chain split because a lack of support from Bitcoin Core, >>> > that could be a one-way street. >>> >>> I think this is somewhat naive and sounds a lot like the repeat of the >>> previously debunked "XT" and "Classic" hysteria. >>> >>> There is a reason that segwit2x is pretty much unanimously rejected by >>> the technical community. And just like with XT/Classic/Unlimited >>> you'll continue to see a strong correlation with people who are >>> unwilling and unable to keep updating the software at an acceptable >>> level of quality-- esp. because the very founding on their fork is >>> predicated on discarding those properties. >>> >>> If miners want to go off and create an altcoin-- welp, thats something >>> they can always do, and nothing about that will force anyone to go >>> along with it. >>> >>> As far as prevent a chain split goes, all those things >>> (148/91/segwit2x(per today)) effectively guarantee a chainsplit-- so I >>> don't think that holds. >>> _______________________________________________ >>> bitcoin-dev mailing list >>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org >>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> bitcoin-dev mailing list >> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org >> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> bitcoin-dev mailing list >> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org >> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > > --001a114a9c74f1adb805526e6601 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
#=C2=A0Jacob Elios= off:

> =C2=A0will start orp= haning non-bit-1 blocks before=C2=A0Aug 1<= /span>, and we avoid a split. =C2=A0
Correct.=C2=A0 There are 2 short activation periods in BIP91 either of wh= ich would avoid a split.

# Gregory Maxwell:

>= unclear to me=C2=A0_exactly_ what = it would need to implement to be consistent.

This is the relev= ant pull req to core:

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10444
Seems OK.=C2=A0 It's technically running now on testnet5. =C2=A0 I thi= nk it (or a -bip148 option) should be merged as soon as feasible.

> previously debunked "XT&quo= t; and "Classic" hysteria.

apples vs oranges, imo. = =C2=A0 segwit is not a contentious feature. =C2=A0 the "bundling"= in segwit2x is, but that's not the issue here. =C2=A0 the issue is we = are indirectly requiring miners that strongly support segwit to install con= sensus protocol changes outside of bitcoin's standard reference. =C2=A0= 80% of them have signaled they will do so. =C2=A0 these are uncharted wate= rs.


On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 6:57 PM, = Jacob Eliosoff via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linu= xfoundation.org> wrote:
I could be wrong, but the latest BIP91 implementation (also i= ncluded in Segwit2x) cuts the activation period to 336 blocks (2.33 days). = =C2=A0(This has been updated at https://github.com/bitcoi= n/bips/blob/master/bip-0091.mediawiki.) =C2=A0So if 80% of ha= shpower is actually running that code and signaling on bit 4 by July 25 or = so, then those 80+% will start orphaning non-bit-1 blocks before Aug 1, and= we avoid a split.

There may still be a few non-bit-1 bl= ocks that get orphaned after Aug 1, because they're mined by old BIP141= nodes.=C2=A0 But it seems like very few miners won't be signaling eith= er Segwit2x *or* BIP141 by then...

Make sense?


On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 6:4= 8 PM, Mark Friedenbach <mark@friedenbach.org> wrote:
<= blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px= #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Why do you say activat= ion by August 1st is likely? That would require an entire difficulty adjust= ment period with >=3D95% bit1 signaling. That seems a tall order to orga= nize in the scant few weeks remaining.=C2=A0

On Jun 20, 2017, at 3:29 PM, Jacob Eliosof= f via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wr= ote:

If = segwit is activated before Aug 1, as now seems likely, there will be no spl= it that day.=C2=A0 But if activation is via Segwit2x (also likely), and at = least some nodes do & some don't follow through with the HF 3mo lat= er (again, likely), agreed w/ Greg that *then* we'll see a split - prob= ably in Sep/Oct.=C2=A0 How those two chains will match up and how the split= will play out is anyone's guess...



On Jun 20, 2017 6:16 = PM, "Hampus Sj=C3=B6berg via bitcoin-dev" <bitcoin-dev@lists.l= inuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Ironically, it looks like most of the segwit2x signaling mi= ners are
> faking it (because they're not signaling segwit which = it requires).
> It'll be unfortunate if some aren't faking it and start orphan= ing
> their own blocks because they are failing to signal segwit.

Well, they're doing some kind of "pre-signaling" in = the coinbase at the moment, because the segwit2x project is still in alpha-= phase according to the timeline. They're just showing commitment.
I&= #39;m sure they will begin signaling on version bit 4/BIP91 as well as actu= ally running a segwit2x node when the time comes.


> As far as prevent a= chain split goes, all those things
> (148/91/segwit2x(per today)) ef= fectively guarantee a chainsplit-- so I
> don't think that holds.=

Segwit2x/BIP91/BIP148 will orphan miners that do not r= un a Segwit2x (or BIP148) node, because they wouldn't have the new cons= ensus rule of requiring all blocks to signal for segwit.
I don'= ;t believe there would be any long lasting chainsplit though (because of th= e ~80% hashrate support on segwit2x), perhaps 2-3 blocks if we get unlucky.=

Hampus

2017-06-20 23:49 GMT+02:00 Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>:
=
On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 3:44 PM, Erik = Aronesty via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Because a large percentage of miners are indifferent, right now miners= have
> to choose between BIP148 and Segwit2x if they want to activate Segwit.=

Miners can simply continuing signaling segwit, which will leave them=
at least soft-fork compatible with BIP148 and BIP91 (and god knows
what "segwit2x" is since they keep changing the actual definition= and
do not have a specification; but last I saw the near-term behavior the
same as BIP91 but with a radically reduced activation window, so the
story would be the same there in the near term).

Ironically, it looks like most of the segwit2x signaling miners are
faking it (because they're not signaling segwit which it requires).
It'll be unfortunate if some aren't faking it and start orphaning their own blocks because they are failing to signal segwit.

I don't think the rejection of segwit2x from Bitcoin's developers could be any more resolute than what we've already seen:
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Segwit_support

On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 5:22 PM, Mark Friedenbach via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> I think it is very na=C3=AFve to assume that any shift would be tempor= ary.
> We have a hard enough time getting miners to proactively upgrade to > recent versions of the reference bitcoin daemon. If miners interpret > the situation as being forced to run non-reference software in order > to prevent a chain split because a lack of support from Bitcoin Core,<= br> > that could be a one-way street.

I think this is somewhat naive and sounds a lot like the repeat of t= he
previously debunked "XT" and "Classic" hysteria.

There is a reason that segwit2x is pretty much unanimously rejected by
the technical community.=C2=A0 And just like with XT/Classic/Unlimited
you'll continue to see a strong correlation with people who are
unwilling and unable to keep updating the software at an acceptable
level of quality-- esp. because the very founding on their fork is
predicated on discarding those properties.

If miners want to go off and create an altcoin-- welp, thats something
they can always do,=C2=A0 and nothing about that will force anyone to go along with it.

As far as prevent a chain split goes, all those things
(148/91/segwit2x(per today)) effectively guarantee a chainsplit-- so I
don't think that holds.
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
= bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org= /mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev


_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
= bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org= /mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev


___________________= ____________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list<= /span>
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listin= fo/bitcoin-dev


_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.= linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org= /mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev


--001a114a9c74f1adb805526e6601--