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
81
82
83
84
|
Return-Path: <jl2012@xbt.hk>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BEEFF6C
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 4 Sep 2016 12:29:40 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from erelay3.ox.registrar-servers.com
(erelay3.ox.registrar-servers.com [192.64.117.2])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2FC05206
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 4 Sep 2016 12:29:39 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (unknown [127.0.0.1])
by erelay1.ox.registrar-servers.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id
5115A2207881; Sun, 4 Sep 2016 12:29:39 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from erelay1.ox.registrar-servers.com ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (erelay.ox.registrar-servers.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new,
port 10024)
with LMTP id Uc87fATEB3Js; Sun, 4 Sep 2016 08:29:37 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from MTA-07.privateemail.com (unknown [10.20.150.170])
(using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
by erelay1.ox.registrar-servers.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id
D8E7B22079D3; Sun, 4 Sep 2016 08:29:37 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from APP-01 (unknown [10.20.147.151])
(using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
by MTA-07.privateemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8C58260032;
Sun, 4 Sep 2016 12:29:37 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2016 08:29:37 -0400 (EDT)
From: Johnson Lau <jl2012@xbt.hk>
Reply-To: Johnson Lau <jl2012@xbt.hk>
To: Tom Harding <tomh@thinlink.com>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Message-ID: <1966185375.94265.1472992177565@privateemail.com>
In-Reply-To: <198f7a5e-7912-dfb2-1b61-388a4f81b7b5@thinlink.com>
References: <1317364559.64256.1472791258452@privateemail.com>
<198f7a5e-7912-dfb2-1b61-388a4f81b7b5@thinlink.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
Importance: Medium
X-Mailer: Open-Xchange Mailer v7.8.1-Rev19
X-Originating-Client: open-xchange-appsuite
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,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
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] New BIP: Dealing with dummy stack element
malleability
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: Sun, 04 Sep 2016 12:29:40 -0000
Although it is technically possible to bundle 2 independent softforks in one release, it increases the burden of testing and maintenance. We need to test and prepare for 4 scenarios: both not activated, only NULLDUMMY activated, only SEGWIT activated, and both activated.
Also, as we learnt from BIP66, softfork activation could be risky. It is evident that today a non-negligible percentage of miners are hard-coding the block version number. This increases the risks of softfork transition as miners may not enforce what they are signaling (btw this is also happening on testnet) Making 2 independently softforks would double the risks, and I believe NULLDUMMY alone is not worth the risks.
> On September 2, 2016 at 1:10 PM Tom Harding via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>
> On 9/1/2016 9:40 PM, Johnson Lau via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> > This BIP will be deployed by "version bits" BIP9 using the same parameters for BIP141 and BIP143, with the name "segwit" and using bit 1.
> >
>
> This fix has value outside of segwit. Why bundle the two together?
> Shouldn't miners have to opportunity to vote on them independently?
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
|
