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
|
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 83F158F0
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 19 Aug 2015 16:33:10 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-io0-f178.google.com (mail-io0-f178.google.com
[209.85.223.178])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 43AC718D
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 19 Aug 2015 16:33:09 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by iodv127 with SMTP id v127so15276930iod.3
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 19 Aug 2015 09:33:08 -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:from:date
:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type;
bh=XQ4QLNRMaR4Yc7H8SYHQKwa+s1A6c32uzEgGbxswBvE=;
b=clyGZB1Ftojm3LP30LR0EPqHK9HlS6NRGhEH3g2fFhgpm/26bh35C9UbP75VXJ6XFn
pn3+PAx+IeIirIQl1xGdApC+Vm6VaYWu1GrU+E0KzqJtmk/VFofnE/Gf9OxOwqJEN8x4
3okHXIEyoKU+gIx/kZrCpm2axvQRPmwC+aJ4M41xGd2Dow6f38STfM2m/1L/yvKkWHHM
G4ENMR3QH0Gh3u2lIswjSJIrFu5GkxWhOAJBILWQmVpib01iRu+pshv4bETycve/RgXr
wwsjsDkY7yAkkOc2m5eY1puxzVJHq6x0PtThHKO7SbfViqMXDyV/kgTQll6lvo00C1my
L+rg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmITw/gIEj+cTieEcSL6f6EPkKDPXXyLmubEBH9Y2xwCQr5TccyFWjS67ZXU8RIVu+9E6nE
X-Received: by 10.107.35.138 with SMTP id j132mr15267670ioj.159.1440001988681;
Wed, 19 Aug 2015 09:33:08 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.107.138.14 with HTTP; Wed, 19 Aug 2015 09:32:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Originating-IP: [50.0.37.37]
In-Reply-To: <CAE-z3OWjvR73jHrGhozxgqr_QUDu_hvDmHJWdiEGOcAGMB9oqA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20150819055036.GA19595@muck>
<CAOG=w-unJ+xnWFgiBO3jmgj4Q72ZH6-LOn08TwUF58trc-_WWg@mail.gmail.com>
<CAE-z3OWjvR73jHrGhozxgqr_QUDu_hvDmHJWdiEGOcAGMB9oqA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mark Friedenbach <mark@friedenbach.org>
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2015 09:32:49 -0700
Message-ID: <CAOG=w-uCPnSv9XxWLBteCFjU9B6Kg7RpFb=UknehMVPMUc0nag@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tier Nolan <tier.nolan@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1140f4e602fbb5051dac9793
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,HTML_MESSAGE,
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>
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 16:33:10 -0000
--001a1140f4e602fbb5051dac9793
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
I think you misunderstand my suggestion Tier. I am suggesting the same as
BtcDrak, I think:
Modify IsSuperMajority to take an (optional) mask field. Bits set in that
mask are zero'd for the purpose of the IsSuperMajority calculation. For
this vote we mask bits 0x20000007.
Thus to signal support for CLTV/CSV/etc. (on Core, XT, or not-XT), you set
bit 4. On Core this would mean a minimum version of 0x8, on XT/not-XT a
minimum version of 0x20000008.
However the vote is still over whether to enforce BIP 65, 68, etc. for
blocks with nVersion>=4. So when this all clears up we haven't needlessly
wasted an additional bit.
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 6:22 AM, Tier Nolan via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 7:10 AM, Mark Friedenbach via bitcoin-dev <
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>> We can use nVersion & 0x8 to signal support, while keeping the consensus
>> rule as nVersion >= 4, right? That way we don't waste a bit after this all
>> clears up.
>>
> What happens if XT gets 40% and this BIP gets 55%? That gives 95% that
> accept the upgrade. Version 3 and lower blocks need to be rejected after
> that.
>
> By advertising 0x7 for the last 3 bits, XT is effectively claiming to
> support the check locktime verify BIPs but they don't have the code.
>
> This sequence could be used, without a specific version-bits proposal.
>
> Until height = N + 5000, if 950 of the last 1000 blocks have the 0x8 bit
> set, then reject blocks with version numbers less than 8.
>
> At height N, if the above rule is active, then the BIP is permanent.
>
> It applies to any block with bit 0x8 set, once the 75% threshold is met.
>
> From height N + 5000 to N + 10000, reject blocks which have bit 0x8 set.
>
> N could be set 1 year from now, or so.
>
>
> This gives a period of time after lock that bit 8 is kept and then a
> period where is is guaranteed to be zero.
>
> This gives software that is only watching the bit time to be upgraded and
> similarly time where the bit is set to zero before it can be reused.
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
>
--001a1140f4e602fbb5051dac9793
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><div><div><div>I think you misunderstand my suggestion Tie=
r. I am suggesting the same as BtcDrak, I think:<br><br></div>Modify IsSupe=
rMajority to take an (optional) mask field. Bits set in that mask are zero&=
#39;d for the purpose of the IsSuperMajority calculation. For this vote we =
mask bits 0x20000007.<br><br></div>Thus to signal support for CLTV/CSV/etc.=
(on Core, XT, or not-XT), you set bit 4. On Core this would mean a minimum=
version of 0x8, on XT/not-XT a minimum version of 0x20000008.<br><br></div=
>However the vote is still over whether to enforce BIP 65, 68, etc. for blo=
cks with nVersion>=3D4. So when this all clears up we haven't needle=
ssly wasted an additional bit.<br></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div=
class=3D"gmail_quote">On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 6:22 AM, Tier Nolan via bitc=
oin-dev <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoun=
dation.org" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>>=
</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .=
8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div clas=
s=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><span class=3D"">On Wed, Aug 1=
9, 2015 at 7:10 AM, Mark Friedenbach 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><blockquote =
class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid=
;padding-left:1ex"><p dir=3D"ltr">We can use nVersion & 0x8 to signal s=
upport, while keeping the consensus rule as nVersion >=3D 4, right? That=
way we don't waste a bit after this all clears up.</p></blockquote><di=
v></div></span>What happens if XT gets 40% and this BIP gets 55%?=C2=A0 Tha=
t gives 95% that accept the upgrade.=C2=A0 Version 3 and lower blocks need =
to be rejected after that.<br><br>By advertising 0x7 for the last 3 bits, X=
T is effectively claiming to=20
support the check locktime verify BIPs but they don't have the code.<br=
><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_quote">This sequence could be used, without =
a specific version-bits proposal.<br></div><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><br><=
/div><div class=3D"gmail_quote"></div><div>Until height =3D N + 5000, if 95=
0 of the last 1000 blocks have the 0x8 bit set, then reject blocks with ver=
sion numbers less than 8.<br><br></div><div>At height N, if the above rule =
is active, then the BIP is permanent.=C2=A0 <br><br>It applies to any block=
with bit 0x8 set, once the 75% threshold is met.<br><br></div><div>From he=
ight N + 5000 to N + 10000, reject blocks which have bit 0x8 set.<br></div>=
<div><br></div><div>N could be set 1 year from now, or so.<br></div><br><di=
v><br></div><div>This gives a period of time after lock that bit 8 is kept =
and then a period where is is guaranteed to be zero.<br><br></div><div>This=
gives software that is only watching the bit time to be upgraded and simil=
arly time where the bit is set to zero before it can be reused.<br></div></=
div></div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.=
linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" =
rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail=
man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>
--001a1140f4e602fbb5051dac9793--
|
