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
|
Return-Path: <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D29FB83D
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 19 Aug 2015 10:32:00 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-ob0-f170.google.com (mail-ob0-f170.google.com
[209.85.214.170])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B8A3310D
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 19 Aug 2015 10:31:59 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by obbwr7 with SMTP id wr7so399513obb.2
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 19 Aug 2015 03:31:59 -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:date
:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type
:content-transfer-encoding;
bh=GV9FIinTE5GWLXhYZQMZcCo8Fh3QnnMIPOuW0sqceGY=;
b=GJ6wtOUZUEyd8KlVsFm6B6/ZvHGIkGkZS7cnanoOE+9IRNkhLkMqoTYWAG9a1OW/RA
HLOdZ5WWHUzahODIs3FbwD4l7WbiCxfelSwQmm5m2vjGguRhnmOTh36I6WflxK8VcTbR
l7SLOH6adyjo1HKnsqV69iK2JVO3ASC8cwib3p1KT2Hk6+sP1vP1wixjqfi4LwD0jy8U
eN7UuAVvkWzKRhZfcZL6ff5RH0fLBHrKQZPe7u5khDc5ZCC+aBuYL4sVaut0Bgnp+o+I
E6XvByilqjFvzv77QmP2OpsrIlF+iXZ+IRUA6qeCPCfVK7j2/y3WBhU+a17IrkDcG/Yk
ZYLg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmG3NooBrfSYHZc/ihp27jsx6Ytdhr6dLgP3oP7yzXGdXTWcEL7PsXy6o6+p4IQX/nxNiZ/
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.60.70.104 with SMTP id l8mr9940452oeu.37.1439980319028; Wed,
19 Aug 2015 03:31:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.202.71.85 with HTTP; Wed, 19 Aug 2015 03:31:58 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CADJgMztmgUzy70sJ+_Xj-OFe-kvEi6eSAYoGTb4yg-yGQ9u1dw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20150819055036.GA19595@muck>
<CAOG=w-unJ+xnWFgiBO3jmgj4Q72ZH6-LOn08TwUF58trc-_WWg@mail.gmail.com>
<CABm2gDpBLKxKbHyWocOuyfO1VZ45yM7U1t+zVL_13LP9veXmcA@mail.gmail.com>
<CADJgMztmgUzy70sJ+_Xj-OFe-kvEi6eSAYoGTb4yg-yGQ9u1dw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2015 12:31:58 +0200
Message-ID: <CABm2gDqRycGY2diXoTvL+d5JE0EgccgGdiQdgWj8c_9SMokJEw@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
To: Btc Drak <btcdrak@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>,
Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>
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: Wed, 19 Aug 2015 10:32:01 -0000
I don't think just using version=3D4 for cltv and friends would be a
problem if it wasn't for the XT/nonXT issue.
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 12:20 PM, Btc Drak <btcdrak@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 10:34 AM, Jorge Tim=C3=B3n
> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>
>> Seems like 3 is something we want to do no matter what and therefore
>> is the "most future-proof" solution.
>> I wonder if I can help with that (and I know there's more people that
>> would be interested).
>> Where's the current "non-full" nVersion bits implementation?
>> Why implement a "non-full" version instead of going with the full
>> implementation directly?
>
>
> There is a simple answer to this, convenience: versionbits has not been
> implemented yet, and I believe the BIP is still in review stage. As it se=
ems
> likely the remaining locktime pull requests will be ready by or before th=
e
> next major release, we need a deployment method if versionbits is not rea=
dy
> (which is unlikely because no-one appears to be working on it at the
> moment). Pieter indicated he is OK with another IsSuperMajority() rollout=
in
> the interim. Personally, I dont think we should let perfection be the ene=
my
> of progress here because at the end of the day, the deployment method is
> less important than the actual featureset being proposed.
>
> That said, the features in the next soft fork proposal are all related an=
d
> best deployed as one featureset softfork, but moving forward, versionbits
> seems essential to be able to roll out multiple features in parallel with=
out
> waiting for activation and enforcement each time.
>
>
>
>
>
|
