To: Jacob Eliosoff <jacob.eliosoff@gmail.com>,
	bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
References: <CAAUaCyiHUOQ-rhN5XiGyMc6ocfsNBuH_tzK_QWu7sg1=Qd-o=Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Matt Corallo <lf-lists@mattcorallo.com>
Message-ID: <9e2e7009-7bec-845a-bc9f-3ee03d4b4e7f@mattcorallo.com>
Date: Fri, 26 May 2017 20:02:41 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
	Thunderbird/52.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAAUaCyiHUOQ-rhN5XiGyMc6ocfsNBuH_tzK_QWu7sg1=Qd-o=Q@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Barry Silbert segwit agreement
Precedence: list

Your proposal seems to be simply BIP 91 tied to the
as-yet-entirely-undefined hard fork Barry et al proposed.

Using James' BIP 91 instead of the Barry-bit-4/5/whatever proposal, as
you propose, would make the deployment on the incredibly short timeline
Barry et al proposed slightly more realistic, though I would expect to
see hard fork code readily available and well-tested at this point in
order to meet that timeline.

Ultimately, due to their aggressive timeline, the Barry et al proposal
is incredibly unlikely to meet the requirements of a
multi-billion-dollar system, and continued research into meeting the
spirit, not the text, of their agreement seems warranted.

Matt

On 05/26/17 17:47, Jacob Eliosoff via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> Forgive me if this is a dumb question.  Suppose that rather than
> directly activating segwit, the Silbert/NYC Segwit2MB proposal's lock-in
> just triggered BIP141 signaling (plus later HF).  Would that avoid
> incompatibility with existing BIP141 nodes, and get segwit activated
> sooner?  Eg:
> 
> - Bit 4 (or bit 5 or whatever, now that BIP91 uses 4) signals support
> for "segwit now, HF (TBD) at scheduled date (Nov 23?)"
> - If bit 4 support reaches 80%, it locks in two things: the scheduled HF
> (conditional on segwit), and *immediately* turning on bit 1 (BIP141 support)
> 
> I realize this would still leave problems like the aggressive HF
> schedule, possible chain split at the HF date between Segwit2MB nodes
> and any remaining BIP141 nodes, etc.  My focus here is how
> incompatibility with existing nodes could be minimized.
> 
> (BIP91 could also be used if BIP141 support still fell short of 95%. 
> But if Segwit2MB support reaches 80%, it seems likely that an additional
> 15% will support BIP141-without-HF.)
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>