path: root/2d/644a8837be483ded59a1d6cefe49c85804caf9

Return-Path: <karljohan-alm@garage.co.jp>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
	[172.17.192.35])
	by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3CC64B65
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Wed,  7 Jun 2017 01:11:56 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mo.garage.hdemail.jp (mo.garage.hdemail.jp [46.51.242.127])
	by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 87DF412A
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Wed,  7 Jun 2017 01:11:54 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from ip-10-217-1-36.ap-northeast-1.compute.internal
	(localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by mo.garage.hdemail.jp (hde-mf-postfix) with SMTP id 026DF14C0D3
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Wed,  7 Jun 2017 10:11:53 +0900 (JST)
	(envelope-from karljohan-alm@garage.co.jp)
X-Received: from unknown (HELO mo.garage.hdemail.jp) (127.0.0.1)
	by 0 with SMTP; 7 Jun 2017 10:11:52 +0900
X-Received: from mo.garage.hdemail.jp (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by mo.garage.hdemail.jp (hde-ma-postfix) with ESMTP id E251C4C085
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Wed,  7 Jun 2017 10:11:52 +0900 (JST)
	(envelope-from karljohan-alm@garage.co.jp)
Received: from gw26.oz.hdemail.jp
	(ip-10-188-135-44.ap-northeast-1.compute.internal [10.188.135.44])
	by mo.garage.hdemail.jp (hde-mf-postfix) with ESMTP id DC6AE14C0D3
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Wed,  7 Jun 2017 10:11:52 +0900 (JST)
	(envelope-from karljohan-alm@garage.co.jp)
X-Durian-MailFrom: karljohan-alm@garage.co.jp
X-Durian-RcptTo: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Received: from gw26.oz.hdemail.jp (gw26.oz.hdemail.jp [127.0.0.1])
	by gw26.oz.hdemail.jp (gw26.oz.hdemail.jp [127.0.0.1]);
	Wed, 7 Jun 2017 10:11:49 +0900
X-Received: from mail-qk0-f200.google.com (lb1.oz.lo.hdemail.jp
	[54.248.222.53])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by gw26.oz.hdemail.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B16D148C10F
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Wed,  7 Jun 2017 10:11:49 +0900 (JST)
X-Received: by mail-qk0-f200.google.com with SMTP id g83so45597277qkb.14
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Tue, 06 Jun 2017 18:11:48 -0700 (PDT)
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:cc;
	bh=0Kw7oa+uCMdyGtn5WgC927sEfSlAX+RgsfFYk0BPy4M=;
	b=dhrilh9ps+VDmOWoWftznveNPs3WyxUmi23K4tuYUsWZVnPowS1dfxpmBUNktfwL2r
	q9RZ/iLxTWa4ENrtjhliGM4ITWbji3nZa8ESlrMAd3dL7nD0cwFgtlfU+a6sRHfA3tSV
	x4U5h0mlVb1B8NZHtkfHEVt3gX/WqSgKRPxNNEW6JEWkGUR28xUd+GJGqv/u9FYeRBvv
	7QKFtM1s0d6vm3uSPKKro1h08rC4q8v2Ae0GBsk5Mef2M6DWZxF9qA0DOcLAClxsqSrl
	Hpo762sN1bIksrCiLKDfzy2DZ7Fl/yQBxUYhLRl0aSMAFB8NQfnSzTPPsmSp3pw63Wv3
	yAbg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AODbwcAaB4mzZQIOEq7+NcehCA2OGok0XaVmZvCMqzFnoRhWUogMmByd
	MgeUejPr+T2F+JeHPjYsDawy7kNruAAn6XHJY+PAt+xG1ubgjvN3XJgwrXFCwcgqM9aJOKHujFD
	sz10u7pJJteTqZ+cfmulNCg/Pzip74Qi2TpC9E0gefOtv4A==
X-Received: by 10.55.200.209 with SMTP id t78mr34620048qkl.178.1496797906693; 
	Tue, 06 Jun 2017 18:11:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 10.55.200.209 with SMTP id t78mr34620032qkl.178.1496797906362; 
	Tue, 06 Jun 2017 18:11:46 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.12.146.7 with HTTP; Tue, 6 Jun 2017 18:11:25 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CADvTj4qpH-t5Gx6qyn3yToyUE_GFaBE989=AWNHLKMpMNW3R+w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADvTj4qpH-t5Gx6qyn3yToyUE_GFaBE989=AWNHLKMpMNW3R+w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Karl Johan Alm <karljohan-alm@garage.co.jp>
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 10:11:25 +0900
Message-ID: <CALJw2w5-vzwF4S4szj1fXTeK3ONXOiKEGDEKYre2ArWxwPCfeQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: James Hilliard <james.hilliard1@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
	smtp1.linux-foundation.org
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 07 Jun 2017 01:15:59 +0000
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] User Activated Soft Fork Split Protection
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol 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: Wed, 07 Jun 2017 01:11:56 -0000

One thing about BIP148 activation that may be affected by this is the
fact that segwit signalling non-BIP148 miners + BIP148 miners may hold
majority hash power and prevent a chain split. With this SF, that will
no longer be the case, right? Or am I completely confused on the
subject?

On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 9:56 AM, James Hilliard via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Due to the proposed calendar(https://segwit2x.github.io/) for the
> SegWit2x agreement being too slow to activate SegWit mandatory
> signalling ahead of BIP148 using BIP91 I would like to propose another
> option that miners can use to prevent a chain split ahead of the Aug
> 1st BIP148 activation date.
>
> The splitprotection soft fork is essentially BIP91 but using BIP8
> instead of BIP9 with a lower activation threshold and immediate
> mandatory signalling lock-in. This allows for a majority of miners to
> activate mandatory SegWit signalling and prevent a potential chain
> split ahead of BIP148 activation.
>
> This BIP allows for miners to respond to market forces quickly ahead
> of BIP148 activation by signalling for splitprotection. Any miners
> already running BIP148 should be encouraged to use splitprotection.
>
> <pre>
>   BIP: splitprotection
>   Layer: Consensus (soft fork)
>   Title: User Activated Soft Fork Split Protection
>   Author: James Hilliard <james.hilliard1@gmail.com>
>   Comments-Summary: No comments yet.
>   Comments-URI:
>   Status: Draft
>   Type: Standards Track
>   Created: 2017-05-22
>   License: BSD-3-Clause
>            CC0-1.0
> </pre>
>
> ==Abstract==
>
> This document specifies a coordination mechanism for a simple majority
> of miners to prevent a chain split ahead of BIP148 activation.
>
> ==Definitions==
>
> "existing segwit deployment" refer to the BIP9 "segwit" deployment
> using bit 1, between November 15th 2016 and November 15th 2017 to
> activate BIP141, BIP143 and BIP147.
>
> ==Motivation==
>
> The biggest risk of BIP148 is an extended chain split, this BIP
> provides a way for a simple majority of miners to eliminate that risk.
>
> This BIP provides a way for a simple majority of miners to coordinate
> activation of the existing segwit deployment with less than 95%
> hashpower before BIP148 activation. Due to time constraints unless
> immediately deployed BIP91 will likely not be able to enforce
> mandatory signalling of segwit before the Aug 1st activation of
> BIP148. This BIP provides a method for rapid miner activation of
> SegWit mandatory signalling ahead of the BIP148 activation date. Since
> the primary goal of this BIP is to reduce the chance of an extended
> chain split as much as possible we activate using a simple miner
> majority of 65% over a 504 block interval rather than a higher
> percentage. This BIP also allows miners to signal their intention to
> run BIP148 in order to prevent a chain split.
>
> ==Specification==
>
> While this BIP is active, all blocks must set the nVersion header top
> 3 bits to 001 together with bit field (1<<1) (according to the
> existing segwit deployment). Blocks that do not signal as required
> will be rejected.
>
> ==Deployment==
>
> This BIP will be deployed by "version bits" with a 65%(this can be
> adjusted if desired) activation threshold BIP9 with the name
> "splitprotecion" and using bit 2.
>
> This BIP starts immediately and is a BIP8 style soft fork since
> mandatory signalling will start on midnight August 1st 2017 (epoch
> time 1501545600) regardless of whether or not this BIP has reached its
> own signalling threshold. This BIP will cease to be active when segwit
> is locked-in.
>
> === Reference implementation ===
>
> <pre>
> // Check if Segregated Witness is Locked In
> bool IsWitnessLockedIn(const CBlockIndex* pindexPrev, const
> Consensus::Params& params)
> {
>     LOCK(cs_main);
>     return (VersionBitsState(pindexPrev, params,
> Consensus::DEPLOYMENT_SEGWIT, versionbitscache) ==
> THRESHOLD_LOCKED_IN);
> }
>
> // SPLITPROTECTION mandatory segwit signalling.
> if ( VersionBitsState(pindex->pprev, chainparams.GetConsensus(),
> Consensus::DEPLOYMENT_SPLITPROTECTION, versionbitscache) ==
> THRESHOLD_LOCKED_IN &&
>      !IsWitnessLockedIn(pindex->pprev, chainparams.GetConsensus()) &&
> // Segwit is not locked in
>      !IsWitnessEnabled(pindex->pprev, chainparams.GetConsensus()) ) //
> and is not active.
> {
>     bool fVersionBits = (pindex->nVersion & VERSIONBITS_TOP_MASK) ==
> VERSIONBITS_TOP_BITS;
>     bool fSegbit = (pindex->nVersion &
> VersionBitsMask(chainparams.GetConsensus(),
> Consensus::DEPLOYMENT_SEGWIT)) != 0;
>     if (!(fVersionBits && fSegbit)) {
>         return state.DoS(0, error("ConnectBlock(): relayed block must
> signal for segwit, please upgrade"), REJECT_INVALID, "bad-no-segwit");
>     }
> }
>
> // BIP148 mandatory segwit signalling.
> int64_t nMedianTimePast = pindex->GetMedianTimePast();
> if ( (nMedianTimePast >= 1501545600) &&  // Tue 01 Aug 2017 00:00:00 UTC
>      (nMedianTimePast <= 1510704000) &&  // Wed 15 Nov 2017 00:00:00 UTC
>      (!IsWitnessLockedIn(pindex->pprev, chainparams.GetConsensus()) &&
>  // Segwit is not locked in
>       !IsWitnessEnabled(pindex->pprev, chainparams.GetConsensus())) )
>  // and is not active.
> {
>     bool fVersionBits = (pindex->nVersion & VERSIONBITS_TOP_MASK) ==
> VERSIONBITS_TOP_BITS;
>     bool fSegbit = (pindex->nVersion &
> VersionBitsMask(chainparams.GetConsensus(),
> Consensus::DEPLOYMENT_SEGWIT)) != 0;
>     if (!(fVersionBits && fSegbit)) {
>         return state.DoS(0, error("ConnectBlock(): relayed block must
> signal for segwit, please upgrade"), REJECT_INVALID, "bad-no-segwit");
>     }
> }
> </pre>
>
> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/0.14...jameshilliard:splitprotection-v0.14.1
>
> ==Backwards Compatibility==
>
> This deployment is compatible with the existing "segwit" bit 1
> deployment scheduled between midnight November 15th, 2016 and midnight
> November 15th, 2017. This deployment is also compatible with the
> existing BIP148 deployment. This BIP is compatible with BIP91 only if
> BIP91 activates before it and before BIP148. Miners will need to
> upgrade their nodes to support splitprotection otherwise they may
> build on top of an invalid block. While this bip is active users
> should either upgrade to splitprotection or wait for additional
> confirmations when accepting payments.
>
> ==Rationale==
>
> Historically we have used IsSuperMajority() to activate soft forks
> such as BIP66 which has a mandatory signalling requirement for miners
> once activated, this ensures that miners are aware of new rules being
> enforced. This technique can be leveraged to lower the signalling
> threshold of a soft fork while it is in the process of being deployed
> in a backwards compatible way. We also use a BIP8 style timeout to
> ensure that this BIP is compatible with BIP148 and that BIP148
> compatible mandatory signalling activates regardless of miner
> signalling levels.
>
> By orphaning non-signalling blocks during the BIP9 bit 1 "segwit"
> deployment, this BIP can cause the existing "segwit" deployment to
> activate without needing to release a new deployment. As we approach
> BIP148 activation it may be desirable for a majority of miners to have
> a method that will ensure that there is no chain split.
>
> ==References==
>
> *[https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-March/013714.html
> Mailing list discussion]
> *[https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/v0.6.0/src/main.cpp#L1281-L1283
> P2SH flag day activation]
> *[[bip-0009.mediawiki|BIP9 Version bits with timeout and delay]]
> *[[bip-0016.mediawiki|BIP16 Pay to Script Hash]]
> *[[bip-0091.mediawiki|BIP91 Reduced threshold Segwit MASF]]
> *[[bip-0141.mediawiki|BIP141 Segregated Witness (Consensus layer)]]
> *[[bip-0143.mediawiki|BIP143 Transaction Signature Verification for
> Version 0 Witness Program]]
> *[[bip-0147.mediawiki|BIP147 Dealing with dummy stack element malleability]]
> *[[bip-0148.mediawiki|BIP148 Mandatory activation of segwit deployment]]
> *[[bip-0149.mediawiki|BIP149 Segregated Witness (second deployment)]]
> *[https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/01/26/segwit-benefits/ Segwit benefits]
>
> ==Copyright==
>
> This document is dual licensed as BSD 3-clause, and Creative Commons
> CC0 1.0 Universal.
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev