1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
|
Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <luke@dashjr.org>) id 1YxSIU-0002wQ-Lp
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Wed, 27 May 2015 03:46:26 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of dashjr.org
designates 85.234.147.28 as permitted sender)
client-ip=85.234.147.28; envelope-from=luke@dashjr.org;
helo=zinan.dashjr.org;
Received: from 85-234-147-28.static.as29550.net ([85.234.147.28]
helo=zinan.dashjr.org)
by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
id 1YxSIT-0007PG-Jk for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Wed, 27 May 2015 03:46:26 +0000
Received: from ishibashi.localnet (unknown
[IPv6:2001:470:5:265:61b6:56a6:b03d:28d6])
(Authenticated sender: luke-jr)
by zinan.dashjr.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1938E1080005;
Wed, 27 May 2015 03:46:18 +0000 (UTC)
From: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org>
To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Date: Wed, 27 May 2015 03:46:15 +0000
User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/3.14.41-gentoo; KDE/4.14.3; x86_64; ; )
References: <CAPg+sBg5TqQ=zjyZ7dp-d1oBGp31Krnix3zyt9suP4-AGbxW=Q@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAPg+sBg5TqQ=zjyZ7dp-d1oBGp31Krnix3zyt9suP4-AGbxW=Q@mail.gmail.com>
X-PGP-Key-Fingerprint: E463 A93F 5F31 17EE DE6C 7316 BD02 9424 21F4 889F
X-PGP-Key-ID: BD02942421F4889F
X-PGP-Keyserver: hkp://pgp.mit.edu
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
charset="iso-8859-15"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <201505270346.17014.luke@dashjr.org>
X-Spam-Score: -1.5 (-)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
0.0 TVD_RCVD_IP Message was received from an IP address
-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
sender-domain
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
X-Headers-End: 1YxSIT-0007PG-Jk
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Version bits proposal
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 May 2015 03:46:26 -0000
On Wednesday, May 27, 2015 1:48:05 AM Pieter Wuille wrote:
> Feel free to comment. As the gist does not support notifying participants
> of new comments, I would suggest using the mailing list instead.
I suggest adding a section describing how this interacts with and changes GBT.
Currently, the client tells the server what the highest block version it
supports is, and the server indicates a block version to use in its template,
as well as optional instructions for the client to forcefully use this version
despite its own maximum version number. Making the version a bitfield
contradicts the increment-only assumption of this design, and since GBT
clients are not aware of overall network consensus state, reused bits can
easily become confused. I suggest, therefore, that GBT clients should indicate
(instead of a maximum supported version number) a list of softforks by
identifier keyword, and the GBT server respond with a template indicating:
- An object of softfork keywords to bit values, that the server will accept.
- The version number, as presently conveyed, indicating the preferred softfork
flags.
Does this sound reasonable, and/or am I missing anything else?
Luke
|
