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
|
Return-Path: <tier.nolan@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 09960957
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 19 Aug 2015 13:24:28 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-qk0-f178.google.com (mail-qk0-f178.google.com
[209.85.220.178])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7860E89
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 19 Aug 2015 13:24:27 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by qkcv6 with SMTP id v6so1833413qkc.0
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 19 Aug 2015 06:24:26 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:cc
:content-type; bh=pTyLq+0UsCvfxpYMqr7G9LwWXbfGX7U8irt6H8MOEB8=;
b=sDjHspGKYG4agytZ5XERisPMxWfJrkYlqH64JdooVhmWsDzeJDIDWVDRVQ0wveYNIS
6pbd0eXqb5okqN1fmy/9tAJvzTNGKRIQnu5hhkAXNltzBw8wrybsud3mSIytjoj90cK4
GwyuwWONi6/wY0AtIUnnPbAnyx/pnsx70i0euKlMtKXnG94mBKrqMXDE5tZH77p0pG1O
K0umi1qoJ0Yyob4WzAjd5i1f3fJ2TU/Od7CB+DPUmZfnpSF9BAnQQDuq9uBFfVrpFydi
LbKx3UpLQ1bu1Il5ef+VHCR2nc+b1ohDIV6NqC8R6mo0bIXrREk+TkBQl7qU4W2NiNbJ
QFPw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.55.214.216 with SMTP id p85mr22605900qkl.93.1439990666687;
Wed, 19 Aug 2015 06:24:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.140.31.181 with HTTP; Wed, 19 Aug 2015 06:24:26 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CADJgMztysqVya1nnRatyav5rqcpEZ81CmXxW0ZqwJoLN7W2=hg@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>
<CABm2gDqRycGY2diXoTvL+d5JE0EgccgGdiQdgWj8c_9SMokJEw@mail.gmail.com>
<CADJgMztysqVya1nnRatyav5rqcpEZ81CmXxW0ZqwJoLN7W2=hg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2015 14:24:26 +0100
Message-ID: <CAE-z3OVAJcnFn21F9QTGCf=NZrLQ9hAtj_tqSCboQGCfFSvq=Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Tier Nolan <tier.nolan@gmail.com>
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1149b0f82af886051da9f4f6
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, HTML_MESSAGE,
MALFORMED_FREEMAIL,
MISSING_HEADERS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=no version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
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 13:24:28 -0000
--001a1149b0f82af886051da9f4f6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 2:15 PM, Btc Drak via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> What problem am I missing if we just mask of the offending bits. For my
> own project which uses auxpow (and thus has weird nVersion), I also used
> the bitmasking method to get rid of auxpow version bits before making the
> standard integer comparisons to deploy BIP66 using IsSuperMajority():
>
> if ((block.nVersion & 0xff) >= 4 && CBlockIndex::IsSuperMajority(...))
> { //...}
>
What if version number 257 is used in the future? That would appear to be
a version 1 block and fail the test.
--001a1149b0f82af886051da9f4f6
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><br><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quo=
te">On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 2:15 PM, Btc Drak via bitcoin-dev <span dir=3D"=
ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D=
"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><bl=
ockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #=
ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br=
><div class=3D"gmail_quote">What problem am I missing if we just mask of th=
e offending bits. For my own project which uses auxpow (and thus has weird =
nVersion), I also used the bitmasking method to get rid of auxpow version b=
its before making the standard integer comparisons to deploy BIP66 using Is=
SuperMajority():<div><br></div><div>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 if ((block.nVersion &=
0xff) >=3D 4 && CBlockIndex::IsSuperMajority(...)) { //...}</di=
v></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>What if version number=
257 is used in the future?=C2=A0 That would appear to be a version 1 block=
and fail the test.<br></div></div></div></div>
--001a1149b0f82af886051da9f4f6--
|
