Return-Path: <mark@friedenbach.org>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
	[172.17.192.35])
	by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3E4D326C
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Thu, 20 Aug 2015 17:43:07 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-io0-f176.google.com (mail-io0-f176.google.com
	[209.85.223.176])
	by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 67A6514E
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Thu, 20 Aug 2015 17:43:06 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by iods203 with SMTP id s203so54683549iod.0
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Thu, 20 Aug 2015 10:43:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
	d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
	h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date
	:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type;
	bh=Dgx/OpqU9mAnrzdFzkNr4QZ+iNZfSldV1jRqHyS5IAo=;
	b=NB3lHNHftdmz8Z/wEdHwGJrVi+KDgwLVAe4t8Te7NkVKW9JMKvc1LJIhlsQe+Zz4JX
	FUMjBWV0xkHULNYN7lKhEc2AYiZ0NiV90oa4ge+iMVMOgLupky1yLYmt7Ah+JHT+RnNq
	fxmuHj92BsrVLFCNx+kyiuB/1eU+OU2ygiX/Bx+67Izk6fjYq7Rwd4LSpqLZijuHwwuo
	spvbYacdZSgLZyzXdfbfjCxQ9JJgKlRGvMyBdQhIRxh7ckMk7quUarnt/O3IlCs9lhYO
	UcEbqg7ZmOOeVhajLlRa4d0vTkhfR05WFo8x8cjgcsFt4eK/AA6zKhRC/sMYYBV9M5bx
	2ErA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQk5TkMe6cczL8UI5SjVb5MiUAc1zQdhSD+9eMkkAtTy+FHWZcLeAG4PBwvP5yfJ4BkvYZ8X
X-Received: by 10.107.130.28 with SMTP id e28mr4540154iod.77.1440092585704;
	Thu, 20 Aug 2015 10:43:05 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.107.138.14 with HTTP; Thu, 20 Aug 2015 10:42:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Originating-IP: [173.228.107.141]
In-Reply-To: <c20a83f511d7023f9cdd2df4713cddf9@xbt.hk>
References: <20150819055036.GA19595@muck>
	<c20a83f511d7023f9cdd2df4713cddf9@xbt.hk>
From: Mark Friedenbach <mark@friedenbach.org>
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 10:42:45 -0700
Message-ID: <CAOG=w-tA0Rme_geadjaZCP4QRYb2T0y7PGCZ-QbjGVt2H+=z=w@mail.gmail.com>
To: jl2012@xbt.hk
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113fb70003d64b051dc1af8c
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,HTML_MESSAGE,
	RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
	smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] CLTV/CSV/etc. deployment considerations due to
 XT/Not-BitcoinXT miners
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Development 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, 20 Aug 2015 17:43:07 -0000

--001a113fb70003d64b051dc1af8c
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

No, the nVersion would be >=3D 4, so that we don't waste any version values=
.

On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 10:32 AM, jl2012 via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev =E6=96=BC 2015-08-19 01:50 =E5=AF=AB=E5=88=B0:
>
>
>>
>> 2) nVersion mask, with IsSuperMajority()
>>
>> In this option the nVersion bits set by XT/Not-Bitcoin-XT miners would
>> be masked away, prior to applying standard IsSuperMajority() logic:
>>
>>     block.nVersion & ~0x20000007
>>
>> This means that CLTV/CSV/etc. miners running Bitcoin Core would create
>> blocks with nVersion=3D8, 0b1000. From the perspective of the
>> CLTV/CSV/etc.  IsSuperMajority() test, XT/Not-Bitcoin-XT miners would be
>> advertising blocks that do not trigger the soft-fork.
>>
>> For the perpose of soft-fork warnings, the highest known version can
>> remain nVersion=3D8, which is triggered by both XT/Not-Bitcoin-XT blocks
>> as well as a future nVersion bits implementation. Equally,
>> XT/Not-Bitcoin-XT soft-fork warnings will be triggered, by having an
>> unknown bit set.
>>
>> When nVersion bits is implemented by the Bitcoin protocol, the plan of
>> setting the high bits to 0b001 still works. The three lowest bits will
>> be unusable for some time, but will be eventually recoverable as
>> XT/Not-Bitcoin-XT mining ceases.
>>
>> Equally, further IsSuperMajority() softforks can be accomplished with
>> the same masking technique.
>>
>> This option does complicate the XT-coin protocol implementation in the
>> future. But that's their problem, and anyway, the maintainers
>> (Hearn/Andresen) has strenuously argued(5) against the use of soft-forks
>> and/or appear to be in favor of a more centralized mandatory update
>> schedule.(6)
>>
>>
> If you are going to mask bits, would you consider to mask all bits except
> the 4th bit? So other fork proposals may use other bits for voting
> concurrently.
>
> And as I understand, the masking is applied only during the voting stage?
> After the softfork is fully enforced with 95% support, the nVersion will =
be
> simply >=3D8, without any masking?
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>

--001a113fb70003d64b051dc1af8c
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">No, the nVersion would be &gt;=3D 4, so that we don&#39;t =
waste any version values.<br></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div clas=
s=3D"gmail_quote">On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 10:32 AM, jl2012 via bitcoin-dev =
<span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.o=
rg" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt;</span> =
wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;bord=
er-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev =E6=96=
=BC 2015-08-19 01:50 =E5=AF=AB=E5=88=B0:<span class=3D""><br>
<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
<br>
2) nVersion mask, with IsSuperMajority()<br>
<br>
In this option the nVersion bits set by XT/Not-Bitcoin-XT miners would<br>
be masked away, prior to applying standard IsSuperMajority() logic:<br>
<br>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 block.nVersion &amp; ~0x20000007<br>
<br>
This means that CLTV/CSV/etc. miners running Bitcoin Core would create<br>
blocks with nVersion=3D8, 0b1000. From the perspective of the<br>
CLTV/CSV/etc.=C2=A0 IsSuperMajority() test, XT/Not-Bitcoin-XT miners would =
be<br>
advertising blocks that do not trigger the soft-fork.<br>
<br>
For the perpose of soft-fork warnings, the highest known version can<br>
remain nVersion=3D8, which is triggered by both XT/Not-Bitcoin-XT blocks<br=
>
as well as a future nVersion bits implementation. Equally,<br>
XT/Not-Bitcoin-XT soft-fork warnings will be triggered, by having an<br>
unknown bit set.<br>
<br>
When nVersion bits is implemented by the Bitcoin protocol, the plan of<br>
setting the high bits to 0b001 still works. The three lowest bits will<br>
be unusable for some time, but will be eventually recoverable as<br>
XT/Not-Bitcoin-XT mining ceases.<br>
<br>
Equally, further IsSuperMajority() softforks can be accomplished with<br>
the same masking technique.<br>
<br>
This option does complicate the XT-coin protocol implementation in the<br>
future. But that&#39;s their problem, and anyway, the maintainers<br>
(Hearn/Andresen) has strenuously argued(5) against the use of soft-forks<br=
>
and/or appear to be in favor of a more centralized mandatory update<br>
schedule.(6)<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br></span>
If you are going to mask bits, would you consider to mask all bits except t=
he 4th bit? So other fork proposals may use other bits for voting concurren=
tly.<br>
<br>
And as I understand, the masking is applied only during the voting stage? A=
fter the softfork is fully enforced with 95% support, the nVersion will be =
simply &gt;=3D8, without any masking?<div class=3D"HOEnZb"><div class=3D"h5=
"><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">=
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" =
rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail=
man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>

--001a113fb70003d64b051dc1af8c--