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
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
|
Return-Path: <nbvfour@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9E55CC14
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 8 Dec 2015 19:40:37 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-io0-f173.google.com (mail-io0-f173.google.com
[209.85.223.173])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1274C199
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 8 Dec 2015 19:40:37 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by ioc74 with SMTP id 74so35246262ioc.2
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 08 Dec 2015 11:40:36 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject
:from:to:cc:content-type;
bh=x9y1b7namevgxLEhhA2qjjmCjrfIys36IxVrKioz8Uo=;
b=zxWxgXnpKsivrSFTP/BV8gHuhUXxOohVCAavu5SkHT0tz6PhqvzmH54gzHO1amkP1J
HTxp1w+f9vp/IUOIAZ93udXW3/ZebzsxO3pbeqRFV/AKxQEHmBEL7MDrveicSU14DP79
UbHLgRpNxakOtoLxZibZ1AvA91AeNzvxUJc9r8kEa6PDD/VOcBptocs/mV0qSnLqQ6RL
VuvoQ0oVanJ1XQ5TWfaP9gMeBOOsgLU2UErg1djKgPm8qSDYBmRBZGeqUkxhIePhvEon
ejtTCJU6GfWikmopAyw/KihzFF88nBFlaACWRrXt84nBmpbtvnk6CsADehzM9WW5/Jdg
m1TQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.107.3.163 with SMTP id e35mr1430689ioi.157.1449603636322;
Tue, 08 Dec 2015 11:40:36 -0800 (PST)
Sender: nbvfour@gmail.com
Received: by 10.36.20.130 with HTTP; Tue, 8 Dec 2015 11:40:36 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CACrzPenvAWdkgRG3Y7P31JiNEVRYvd+f1nMp=QRhAp5P_eGRow@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CACrzPenvAWdkgRG3Y7P31JiNEVRYvd+f1nMp=QRhAp5P_eGRow@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2015 11:40:36 -0800
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 3fIrObdWMaJP-sP6z2VnDS3QTFI
Message-ID: <CAAcC9ysviyCaajpwZezzLnPhVVeFxgTKNfFuH6o-CyXNFNBHbA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Chris Priest <cp368202@ohiou.edu>
To: Vincent Truong <vincent.truong@procabiak.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID, FREEMAIL_FROM, 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@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP 9 style version bits for txns
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: Tue, 08 Dec 2015 19:40:37 -0000
I proposed in my Wildcard Inputs BIP that the version field be split
in two. The first 4 bytes are version number (which in practice is
being used for script version), and the second 4 bits are used for
transaction type.
I don't think the BIP9 mechanism really applies to transactions. A
block is essentially a collection of transactions, therefore voting on
the block applies to the many parties who have transactions in the
block. A transaction on the other hand only effects at most two
parties (the sender and the receiver). In other words, block are
"communal" data structures, transactions are individual data
structures. Also, the nature of soft forks are that wallets can choose
to implement a new feature or not. For instance, if no wallets
implement RBF or SW, then those features effectively don't exist,
regardless of how many nodes have upgraded to handle the feature.
Any new transaction feature should get a new "type" number. A new
transaction feature can't happen until the nodes support it.
On 12/8/15, Vincent Truong via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> So I have been told more than once that the version announcement in blocks
> is not a vote, but a signal for readiness, used in isSupermajority().
> Basically, if soft forks (and hard forks) won't activate unless a certain %
> of blocks have been flagged with the version up (or bit flipped when
> versionbits go live) to signal their readiness, that is a vote against
> implementation if they never follow up. I don't like this politically
> correct speech because in reality it is a vote... But I'm not here to argue
> about that... I would like to see if there are any thoughts on
> extending/copying isSupermajority() for a new secondary/non-critical
> function to also look for a similar BIP 9 style version bit in txns.
> Apologies if already proposed, haven't heard of it anywhere.
>
> If we are looking for a signal of readiness, it is unfair to wallet
> developers and exchanges that they are unable to signal if they too are
> ready for a change. As more users are going into use SPV or SPV-like
> wallets, when a change occurs that makes them incompatible/in need of
> upgrade we need to make sure they aren't going to break or introduce
> security flaws for users.
>
> If a majority of transactions have been sent are flagged ready, we know
> that they're also good to go.
>
> Would you implement the same versionbits for txn's version field, using 3
> bits for versioning and 29 bits for flags? This indexing of every txn might
> sound insane and computationally expensive for bitcoin Core to run, but if
> it isn't critical to upgrade with soft forks, then it can be watched
> outside the network by enthusiasts. I believe this is the most politically
> correct way to get wallet devs and exchanges involved. (If it were me I
> would absolutely try figure out a way to stick it in isSupermajority...)
>
> Miners can watch for readiness flagged by wallets before they themselves
> flag ready. We will have to trust miners to not jump the gun, but that's
> the trade off.
>
> Thoughts?
>
|
