Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BD68CA55 for ; Thu, 13 Jul 2017 19:20:17 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-qk0-f170.google.com (mail-qk0-f170.google.com [209.85.220.170]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1804DCD for ; Thu, 13 Jul 2017 19:20:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-qk0-f170.google.com with SMTP id a66so45176391qkb.0 for ; Thu, 13 Jul 2017 12:20:16 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=P6Z9O9r2eqmhWQe4wOr0mnMBnxqsCI2G/MW5Pi6DHpI=; b=Wxdjkj0spuhyEq/1lyPdWgPUlvPjWq3WGnXyZjFHhwpU+QR0nMuCIEx+vqUNvgYzpQ R1UQ5DYvbkLig7xX0O7awRQEmm7ErW5MAw+C3kD3UCruuOr5ACFZ6HbSZ+ud0vpJBrum uV5pRiwsG/cnii0UeXXgCVd8DeiyOF1LDmT4uikwXbsMjGYTFIsvpyTi7d/TM4fvjAWN lyHzaQ8KL6GurE1ZMsi4BsQAkEooEi92P7hfjs2PM4YrP8+H6CeEaKUvzmFflRrKgj7A aQyFdcSbhyXwCHMQXxzUYwM5ocunJ+02e4W6f7nq2gdMbk6NbMJTYdXzEvD6M5cRI17U Yrow== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=P6Z9O9r2eqmhWQe4wOr0mnMBnxqsCI2G/MW5Pi6DHpI=; b=svWASDMsu1Smcghz9pGbqCp6KED5uiuJQ3OjqOBMUEt8+BwRb6iQxfMh3Zh+W4yTcU knaVZFXlie8F8dTn2zFKTaiqvsPFLBNQhRUcmKUz4Lj341GSJgigBCz6NdXcSOLRlLnq anvheJn7qExrxy4IXkpdXENzcz2D/2/VfXO6kQ9uFd5cwL7eGAQ1rHNQTBBEXN+2AT2G kgoBI8iYwlpF2dICx/nGfjgOCJi43JqXAuCesPeceF7oAV1d776VSW9nbF21H9ltVYw2 InPIQ/o4tiiA7YDJLeXaIzoIUPRKBaSHpCGj1v1sQdTdpF/ugk/hpSkNyo+Nu3F82S/H wlFA== X-Gm-Message-State: AIVw110hrjMmxDoFqXl5jRwohnlKNkBd9bpDGRq4MuqmWjZD9Ejit5L0 ouqyMlP0rhOZAF/iuhpmKU0zY1ZXeju/ X-Received: by 10.55.20.25 with SMTP id e25mr7343410qkh.217.1499973616025; Thu, 13 Jul 2017 12:20:16 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.12.135.113 with HTTP; Thu, 13 Jul 2017 12:19:35 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <7869651.CRYTeDpGy9@strawberry> From: Sergio Demian Lerner Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2017 16:19:35 -0300 Message-ID: To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1144d4d68e43d5055437d2e8" X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM autolearn=no 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, 13 Jul 2017 19:23:35 +0000 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] A Segwit2x BIP 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: Thu, 13 Jul 2017 19:20:17 -0000 --001a1144d4d68e43d5055437d2e8 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable The BIP has been updated. Changes: - The technical spec has been improved: now the block size increase is specified in terms of weight and not in terms of bytes. - The increase in the maximum block sigops after HF has been documented. - Comments added about the worst case block size. Happy weekend! And don't forget to start signaling something before block 475776 ! It's just 90 blocks away. Bit 1 or 4,1 or whatever you wish, but please signal something. To the moon! On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 2:38 PM, Jorge Tim=C3=B3n via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > > On 12 Jul 2017 2:31 pm, "Tom Zander via bitcoin-dev" linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > On Monday, 10 July 2017 20:38:08 CEST Jorge Tim=C3=B3n via bitcoin-dev wr= ote: > > I think anything less than 1 year after release of tested code by some > > implementation would be irresponsible for any hardfork, even a very > > simple one. > > Good news! > > Code to support 2x (the hard fork part of the proposal) has been out and > tested for much longer than that. > > > Not true. It's different code on top of segwit. The first attempt in btc1 > (very recent) didn't even increased the size (because it changed the > meaningless "base size" without touching the weight limit. As for the > current code, I don't think it has been properly tested today, let alone > "for mucj longer than 1 year. > Anyway, I said, one year from tested release. Segwitx2 hasn't been > released, has it? If so, too late to discuss a bip imo, the bip may end u= p > being different from what has been released due to feedback (unless it is > ignored again, of course). > > > -- > Tom Zander > Blog: https://zander.github.io > Vlog: https://vimeo.com/channels/tomscryptochannel > _______________________________________________ > 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 > > --001a1144d4d68e43d5055437d2e8 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
The BIP has been updated.

Changes:
<= div>- The technical spec has been improved: now the block size increase is = specified in terms of weight and not in terms of bytes.
- The inc= rease in the maximum block sigops after HF has been documented.
-= Comments added about the worst case block size.

H= appy weekend! And don't forget to start signaling something before bloc= k 475776 !=C2=A0 It's just 90 blocks away.
Bit 1 or 4,1 or wh= atever you wish, but please signal something.

To t= he moon!


On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 2:38 PM, Jorge Tim=C3=B3n v= ia bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org<= /a>> wrote:
<= span class=3D"">


On 12 Jul 2017 2:31 pm, "Tom Zander via bitcoin-dev" <= = bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
On Monday, 10 July 2017 20:38:08 CEST Jorge Tim= =C3=B3n via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> I think anything less than 1 year after release of tested code by some=
> implementation would be irresponsible for any hardfork, even a very > simple one.

Good news!

Code to support 2x (the hard fork part of the proposal) has been out and tested for much longer than that.

Not true. It's different = code on top of segwit. The first attempt in btc1 (very recent) didn't e= ven increased the size (because it changed the meaningless "base size&= quot; without touching the weight limit. As for the current code, I don'= ;t think it has been properly tested today, let alone "for mucj longer= than 1 year.
Anyway, I said, one year from tested r= elease. Segwitx2 hasn't been released, has it? If so, too late to discu= ss a bip imo, the bip may end up being different from what has been release= d due to feedback (unless it is ignored again, of course).



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


--001a1144d4d68e43d5055437d2e8--