MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <87mvwqb132.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>
References: <87mvwqb132.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 18:53:20 +0100
Message-ID: <CAE-z3OWLteNyBWuYSkYLZNteOGjDch_fViOV2kpWCaZkXsbu4w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Tier Nolan <tier.nolan@gmail.com>
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1141664c5e2a81051fe0f9d9
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] [BIP Proposal] Version bits with timeout and
	delay.
Precedence: list

--001a1141664c5e2a81051fe0f9d9
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 7:56 PM, Rusty Russell via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> '''States'''
> With every softfork proposal we associate a state BState, which begins
> at ''defined'', and can be ''locked-in'', ''activated'',
> or ''failed''.  Transitions are considered after each
> retarget period.
>

I think the 75% rule should be maintained.  It confirms that miners who are
setting the bit are actually creating blocks that meet the new rule (though
it doesn't check if they are enforcing it).

What is the reason for aligning the updated to the difficulty window?


*defined*
Miners set bit
If 75% of blocks of last 2016 have bit set, goto tentative


*tentative*
Miners set bit
Reject blocks that have bit set that don't follow new rule
If 95% of blocks of last 2016 have bit set, goto locked-in


*locked-in*

Point of no return
Miners still set bit
Reject blocks that have bit set that don't follow new rule
After 2016 blocks goto notice


*activated*

Miners don't set bit for at least 10080 blocks
Reject blocks that don't follow new rule

'''Failure: Timeout'''
> A soft fork proposal should include a ''timeout''.
>

I think counting in blocks is easier to be exact here.

If two bits were allocated per proposal, then miners could vote against
forks to recover the bits.  If 25% of the miners vote against, then that
kills it.

In the rationale, it would be useful to discuss effects on SPV clients and
buggy miners.

SPV clients should be recommended to actually monitor the version field.

--001a1141664c5e2a81051fe0f9d9
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><br><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quo=
te">On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 7:56 PM, Rusty Russell via bitcoin-dev <span di=
r=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" targ=
et=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<b=
r><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;borde=
r-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
&#39;&#39;&#39;States&#39;&#39;&#39;<br>
With every softfork proposal we associate a state BState, which begins<br>
at &#39;&#39;defined&#39;&#39;, and can be &#39;&#39;locked-in&#39;&#39;, &=
#39;&#39;activated&#39;&#39;,<br>
or &#39;&#39;failed&#39;&#39;.=C2=A0 Transitions are considered after each<=
br>
retarget period.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I think the 75% rule s=
hould be maintained.=C2=A0 It confirms that miners who are setting the bit =
are actually creating blocks that meet the new rule (though it doesn&#39;t =
check if they are enforcing it).<br><br></div><div>What is the reason for a=
ligning the updated to the difficulty window?<br></div><div><br></div><div>=
<b>defined<br></b><br></div><div>Miners set bit<br>If 75% of blocks of last=
 2016 have bit set, goto tentative<br><br><div><b>tentative<br></b><br></di=
v>Miners set bit<br>Reject blocks that have bit set that don&#39;t follow n=
ew rule<br>If 95% of blocks of last 2016 have bit set, goto locked-in<br></=
div><div></div><div><br></div><div><b>locked-in<br></b></div><div><br></div=
><div>Point of no return<br></div><div>Miners still set bit<br>Reject block=
s that have bit set that don&#39;t follow new rule<br></div><div></div><div=
>After 2016 blocks goto notice<br></div><br><div><div><b>activated<br></b><=
/div><div><br></div><div>Miners don&#39;t set bit for at least 10080 blocks=
<br>Reject blocks that don&#39;t follow new rule<br></div><div><br></div></=
div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;bor=
der-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
&#39;&#39;&#39;Failure: Timeout&#39;&#39;&#39;<br>
A soft fork proposal should include a &#39;&#39;timeout&#39;&#39;.=C2=A0 <b=
r></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I think counting in blocks is easier to =
be exact here.<br><br></div><div>If two bits were allocated per proposal, t=
hen miners could vote against forks to recover the bits.=C2=A0 If 25% of th=
e miners vote against, then that kills it.<br><br></div><div>In the rationa=
le, it would be useful to discuss effects on SPV clients and buggy miners.<=
br><br></div><div>SPV clients should be recommended to actually monitor the=
 version field.<br></div></div></div></div>

--001a1141664c5e2a81051fe0f9d9--