summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/8e/e9e0193398ffedf8a27a26663c4713a8c238ad
blob: ae8be1a95a9c2b29a563247b520ba3fa16b2ad54 (plain)
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
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
Return-Path: <mark@friedenbach.org>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
	[172.17.192.35])
	by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 21F41AA6
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Tue, 20 Jun 2017 22:48:54 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-pg0-f47.google.com (mail-pg0-f47.google.com [74.125.83.47])
	by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1EEAB183
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Tue, 20 Jun 2017 22:48:53 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-pg0-f47.google.com with SMTP id e187so16454366pgc.1
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Tue, 20 Jun 2017 15:48:53 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
	d=friedenbach-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623;
	h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc
	:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to;
	bh=FJZvkOF8xk7UwfxXJGnNIdfkISmFuuM/zLSBaj4ZhGw=;
	b=uIhwYpvctNuvfInX3r+mxQuP/GT4X9MjGtPKHu4jpK7sI2ffOfVzN0bPgwMdLM19Ii
	AqUXj4TKRx//DP//7CEw12VQ/2T9iz3J9KNd7F76pBVsJ98ytp9v1P0E/WhpBOdBfkcM
	UO5r+R7gpP9lH30E9GGBGxXY0DNx7bvMGm5qaJnGqRRTMr497rerQc2l0OYtprQf35F6
	xf/n8yLxu7udfHDjG5gj6ToegOGrmOh8bztTvoqVss1PqlNL1nxQA9owOS00gfUOUgwg
	J00j0bHH45KhQzGVthb/PiHvKeaZocqwaaj/ENXqtSPGjstPW2YhD3gK+ZJkILglzygI
	UGkw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
	d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
	h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc
	:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to;
	bh=FJZvkOF8xk7UwfxXJGnNIdfkISmFuuM/zLSBaj4ZhGw=;
	b=hrr1/hCbCG7HAfl4fNEtvrsQ+ux8D7AWbPCUCsxoOsRJD2rSOwBoD/4i4rVsdvnbaa
	ymZctio3GJY7nNXrGXG1pHub8zk5Ic0mtD0zqcGzk29gEZwZ6vMnufpCQjOR5eb1dL5g
	YW3ixtf8wNEGp2pMb58J4OXWSOoIpqOmVAi/GfjjcY0OWCVIdBPXkIBkW8V2hPL3q0V6
	GTyVXmLizAqmUj0druiSARc3UhqX/2KcEs4M8yiGTXD3yHZPC16++WMC39z088UFbePC
	RZ9ASlIzbgv0iGetLokZxRDhdJ41tsTknn9+wmab7ZyJDStbVJXqe7UsM4Pb2JnyIjeC
	MU2g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKS2vOxZe2MycpSLHzxyCRpd/eZ1+jccuwgwmhH0J9SqBovTWoTPeLan
	J1mcQnkwRA5rVO4e3pgpcw==
X-Received: by 10.98.18.16 with SMTP id a16mr32039369pfj.91.1497998932408;
	Tue, 20 Jun 2017 15:48:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.42.15] (173-228-107-141.dsl.static.fusionbroadband.com.
	[173.228.107.141]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id
	r75sm31400685pfl.49.2017.06.20.15.48.39
	(version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128);
	Tue, 20 Jun 2017 15:48:50 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary=Apple-Mail-1672BB11-C15F-4F67-A1AE-CDB491DE2640
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
From: Mark Friedenbach <mark@friedenbach.org>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (14F89)
In-Reply-To: <CAAUaCyg2Nmsa2UaO2msBqSFeHLetUUN+cTETvSSmB7c=nH9ZhQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2017 15:48:23 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <BC758648-BD4F-4DEF-8B79-7E8E0A887033@friedenbach.org>
References: <CAJowKgLtu-HUDuakk4DDU53nyChbQk_zY=f5OO2j1Za95PdL7w@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAS2fgSZ_X3G7j3-S6tAGPe2TOTT2umBB8a0RHpD-wAHN9aPgw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAFMkqK_73RrpaS2oJQ-0o6oC29m6a1h411_P7HmVcAyX712Sgw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAUaCyg2Nmsa2UaO2msBqSFeHLetUUN+cTETvSSmB7c=nH9ZhQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jacob Eliosoff <jacob.eliosoff@gmail.com>
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
	DKIM_VALID, HTML_MESSAGE, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE,
	RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE 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, 21 Jun 2017 01:18:51 +0000
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Miners forced to run non-core code in order to
	get segwit activated
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: Tue, 20 Jun 2017 22:48:54 -0000


--Apple-Mail-1672BB11-C15F-4F67-A1AE-CDB491DE2640
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Why do you say activation by August 1st is likely? That would require an ent=
ire difficulty adjustment period with >=3D95% bit1 signaling. That seems a t=
all order to organize in the scant few weeks remaining.=20

> On Jun 20, 2017, at 3:29 PM, Jacob Eliosoff via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@l=
ists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>=20
> If segwit is activated before Aug 1, as now seems likely, there will be no=
 split that day.  But if activation is via Segwit2x (also likely), and at le=
ast some nodes do & some don't follow through with the HF 3mo later (again, l=
ikely), agreed w/ Greg that *then* we'll see a split - probably in Sep/Oct. =
 How those two chains will match up and how the split will play out is anyon=
e's guess...
>=20
>=20
>=20
> On Jun 20, 2017 6:16 PM, "Hampus Sj=C3=B6berg via bitcoin-dev" <bitcoin-de=
v@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > Ironically, it looks like most of the segwit2x signaling miners are
> > faking it (because they're not signaling segwit which it requires).
> > It'll be unfortunate if some aren't faking it and start orphaning
> > their own blocks because they are failing to signal segwit.
>=20
> Well, they're doing some kind of "pre-signaling" in the coinbase at the mo=
ment, because the segwit2x project is still in alpha-phase according to the t=
imeline. They're just showing commitment.
> I'm sure they will begin signaling on version bit 4/BIP91 as well as actua=
lly running a segwit2x node when the time comes.
>=20
>=20
> > As far as prevent a chain split goes, all those things
> > (148/91/segwit2x(per today)) effectively guarantee a chainsplit-- so I
> > don't think that holds.
>=20
> Segwit2x/BIP91/BIP148 will orphan miners that do not run a Segwit2x (or BI=
P148) node, because they wouldn't have the new consensus rule of requiring a=
ll blocks to signal for segwit.
> I don't believe there would be any long lasting chainsplit though (because=
 of the ~80% hashrate support on segwit2x), perhaps 2-3 blocks if we get unl=
ucky.
>=20
> Hampus
>=20
> 2017-06-20 23:49 GMT+02:00 Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@li=
sts.linuxfoundation.org>:
>> On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 3:44 PM, Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev
>> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>> > Because a large percentage of miners are indifferent, right now miners h=
ave
>> > to choose between BIP148 and Segwit2x if they want to activate Segwit.
>>=20
>> Miners can simply continuing signaling segwit, which will leave them
>> at least soft-fork compatible with BIP148 and BIP91 (and god knows
>> what "segwit2x" is since they keep changing the actual definition and
>> do not have a specification; but last I saw the near-term behavior the
>> same as BIP91 but with a radically reduced activation window, so the
>> story would be the same there in the near term).
>>=20
>> Ironically, it looks like most of the segwit2x signaling miners are
>> faking it (because they're not signaling segwit which it requires).
>> It'll be unfortunate if some aren't faking it and start orphaning
>> their own blocks because they are failing to signal segwit.
>>=20
>> I don't think the rejection of segwit2x from Bitcoin's developers
>> could be any more resolute than what we've already seen:
>> https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Segwit_support
>>=20
>> On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 5:22 PM, Mark Friedenbach via bitcoin-dev
>> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>> > I think it is very na=C3=AFve to assume that any shift would be tempora=
ry.
>> > We have a hard enough time getting miners to proactively upgrade to
>> > recent versions of the reference bitcoin daemon. If miners interpret
>> > the situation as being forced to run non-reference software in order
>> > to prevent a chain split because a lack of support from Bitcoin Core,
>> > that could be a one-way street.
>>=20
>> I think this is somewhat naive and sounds a lot like the repeat of the
>> previously debunked "XT" and "Classic" hysteria.
>>=20
>> There is a reason that segwit2x is pretty much unanimously rejected by
>> the technical community.  And just like with XT/Classic/Unlimited
>> you'll continue to see a strong correlation with people who are
>> unwilling and unable to keep updating the software at an acceptable
>> level of quality-- esp. because the very founding on their fork is
>> predicated on discarding those properties.
>>=20
>> If miners want to go off and create an altcoin-- welp, thats something
>> they can always do,  and nothing about that will force anyone to go
>> along with it.
>>=20
>> As far as prevent a chain split goes, all those things
>> (148/91/segwit2x(per today)) effectively guarantee a chainsplit-- so I
>> don't think that holds.
>> _______________________________________________
>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>=20
>=20
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>=20
>=20
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

--Apple-Mail-1672BB11-C15F-4F67-A1AE-CDB491DE2640
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<html><head><meta http-equiv=3D"content-type" content=3D"text/html; charset=3D=
utf-8"></head><body dir=3D"auto"><div>Why do you say activation by August 1s=
t is likely? That would require an entire difficulty adjustment period with &=
gt;=3D95% bit1 signaling. That seems a tall order to organize in the scant f=
ew weeks remaining.&nbsp;<br></div><div><br>On Jun 20, 2017, at 3:29 PM, Jac=
ob Eliosoff via bitcoin-dev &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfou=
ndation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt; wrote:<br><br></d=
iv><blockquote type=3D"cite"><div><div dir=3D"auto"><div>If segwit is activa=
ted before Aug 1, as now seems likely, there will be no split that day.&nbsp=
; But if activation is via Segwit2x (also likely), and at least some nodes d=
o &amp; some don't follow through with the HF 3mo later (again, likely), agr=
eed w/ Greg that *then* we'll see a split - probably in Sep/Oct.&nbsp; How t=
hose two chains will match up and how the split will play out is anyone's gu=
ess...<div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><br><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div cl=
ass=3D"gmail_quote">On Jun 20, 2017 6:16 PM, "Hampus Sj=C3=B6berg via bitcoi=
n-dev" &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-=
dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt; wrote:<br type=3D"attribution"><blockq=
uote class=3D"quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;p=
adding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div><div><div><div class=3D"quoted-text">=
<div>&gt; Ironically, it looks like most of the segwit2x signaling miners ar=
e<br>&gt; faking it (because they're not signaling segwit which it requires)=
.<br>
&gt; It'll be unfortunate if some aren't faking it and start orphaning<br>
&gt; their own blocks because they are failing to signal segwit.<br><br></di=
v></div>Well, they're doing some kind of "pre-signaling" in the coinbase at t=
he moment, because the segwit2x project is still in alpha-phase according to=
 the timeline. They're just showing commitment.<br>I'm sure they will begin s=
ignaling on version bit 4/BIP91 as well as actually running a segwit2x node w=
hen the time comes.<div class=3D"quoted-text"><br><br>&gt; As far as prevent=
 a chain split goes, all those things<br>&gt; (148/91/segwit2x(per today)) e=
ffectively guarantee a chainsplit-- so I<br>&gt; don't think that holds.<br>=
<br></div></div> Segwit2x/BIP91/BIP148 will orphan miners that do not run a S=
egwit2x (or BIP148) node, because they wouldn't have the new consensus rule o=
f requiring all blocks to signal for segwit.<br></div>I don't believe there w=
ould be any long lasting chainsplit though (because of the ~80% hashrate sup=
port on segwit2x), perhaps 2-3 blocks if we get unlucky.<br><br></div>Hampus=
<br></div><div class=3D"elided-text"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div cla=
ss=3D"gmail_quote">2017-06-20 23:49 GMT+02:00 Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-de=
v <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.=
org" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.<wbr>linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt;</s=
pan>:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border=
-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span>On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 3:44 PM=
, Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev<br>
&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blan=
k">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfounda<wbr>tion.org</a>&gt; wrote:<br>
&gt; Because a large percentage of miners are indifferent, right now miners h=
ave<br>
&gt; to choose between BIP148 and Segwit2x if they want to activate Segwit.<=
br>
<br>
</span>Miners can simply continuing signaling segwit, which will leave them<=
br>
at least soft-fork compatible with BIP148 and BIP91 (and god knows<br>
what "segwit2x" is since they keep changing the actual definition and<br>
do not have a specification; but last I saw the near-term behavior the<br>
same as BIP91 but with a radically reduced activation window, so the<br>
story would be the same there in the near term).<br>
<br>
Ironically, it looks like most of the segwit2x signaling miners are<br>
faking it (because they're not signaling segwit which it requires).<br>
It'll be unfortunate if some aren't faking it and start orphaning<br>
their own blocks because they are failing to signal segwit.<br>
<br>
I don't think the rejection of segwit2x from Bitcoin's developers<br>
could be any more resolute than what we've already seen:<br>
<a href=3D"https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Segwit_support" rel=3D"noreferrer" tar=
get=3D"_blank">https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Seg<wbr>wit_support</a><br>
<br>
On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 5:22 PM, Mark Friedenbach via bitcoin-dev<br>
<span>&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D=
"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfounda<wbr>tion.org</a>&gt; wrote:<br>
&gt; I think it is very na=C3=AFve to assume that any shift would be tempora=
ry.<br>
&gt; We have a hard enough time getting miners to proactively upgrade to<br>=

&gt; recent versions of the reference bitcoin daemon. If miners interpret<br=
>
&gt; the situation as being forced to run non-reference software in order<br=
>
&gt; to prevent a chain split because a lack of support from Bitcoin Core,<b=
r>
&gt; that could be a one-way street.<br>
<br>
</span>I think this is somewhat naive and sounds a lot like the repeat of th=
e<br>
previously debunked "XT" and "Classic" hysteria.<br>
<br>
There is a reason that segwit2x is pretty much unanimously rejected by<br>
the technical community.&nbsp; And just like with XT/Classic/Unlimited<br>
you'll continue to see a strong correlation with people who are<br>
unwilling and unable to keep updating the software at an acceptable<br>
level of quality-- esp. because the very founding on their fork is<br>
predicated on discarding those properties.<br>
<br>
If miners want to go off and create an altcoin-- welp, thats something<br>
they can always do,&nbsp; and nothing about that will force anyone to go<br>=

along with it.<br>
<br>
As far as prevent a chain split goes, all those things<br>
(148/91/segwit2x(per today)) effectively guarantee a chainsplit-- so I<br>
don't think that holds.<br>
<div class=3D"m_-187074116781290509HOEnZb"><div class=3D"m_-1870741167812905=
09h5">______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">b=
itcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundat<wbr>ion.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" r=
el=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.<wbr>org/m=
ailman/listinfo/bitcoin-d<wbr>ev</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>
</div><br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.<=
wbr>linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" r=
el=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.<wbr>org/m=
ailman/listinfo/bitcoin-<wbr>dev</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div></div></div>
</div></blockquote><blockquote type=3D"cite"><div><span>____________________=
___________________________</span><br><span>bitcoin-dev mailing list</span><=
br><span><a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-de=
v@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a></span><br><span><a href=3D"https://lists.lin=
uxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev">https://lists.linuxfoundation=
.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a></span><br></div></blockquote></body></=
html>=

--Apple-Mail-1672BB11-C15F-4F67-A1AE-CDB491DE2640--