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
|
Return-Path: <tomz@freedommail.ch>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D45C83EE
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 28 May 2017 20:51:53 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mx-out01.mykolab.com (mx.kolabnow.com [95.128.36.1])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CBC9513B
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 28 May 2017 20:51:52 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at kolabnow.com
X-Spam-Score: -2.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW
autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
Received: from mx03.mykolab.com (mx03.mykolab.com [10.20.7.101])
by mx-out01.mykolab.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2B876601BC
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 28 May 2017 22:51:49 +0200 (CEST)
From: Tom Zander <tomz@freedommail.ch>
To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 22:51:46 +0200
Message-ID: <1729851.ePRgbNd32q@strawberry>
In-Reply-To: <CADvTj4qdr2yGYFEWA7oVmL-KkrchYb5aQBRY9w0OK4ZVopSTSA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAUaCyiHUOQ-rhN5XiGyMc6ocfsNBuH_tzK_QWu7sg1=Qd-o=Q@mail.gmail.com>
<16817995.6UCILLkEDc@strawberry>
<CADvTj4qdr2yGYFEWA7oVmL-KkrchYb5aQBRY9w0OK4ZVopSTSA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 28 May 2017 20:56:34 +0000
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Barry Silbert segwit agreement
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: Sun, 28 May 2017 20:51:54 -0000
On Saturday, 27 May 2017 01:09:10 CEST James Hilliard wrote:
> > why?
>=20
> the main
> issue is due to 0.13.1+ having many segwit related features active
> already, including all the P2P components, the new network service
> flag, the witness-tx and block messages, compact blocks v2 and
> preferential peering.=20
Hmm, the flags are identical in 0.13 and 0.14 clients.
Either way, this is rather trivial to solve. If bugs in older clients mean=
=20
they can=E2=80=99t operate properly when SW is activated (via bit 4) but th=
ey don=E2=80=99t=20
know its activated (since they only look at bit1), then just ban them when=
=20
they misbehave.
And tell people to upgrade to a version where SegWit is less buggy.
> You would have to then have multiple activation
> codepaths to test for such as BIP141(active)->HF BIP141(inactive)->HF
> etc. By doing BIP141 first you then only have the BIP141(active)->HF
> activation codepath to test for, and you also can't be sure you can
> rely on BIP141(inactive)->HF activation codepath being the only one
> until segwit activation expires.
Heh, well, this is rather simple to solve by not having all those activatio=
n=20
codepaths and just picking **one**.
You can safely replace the bit1 activation code with a bit4 activation=20
logic, which is based on 80% and has no end-date.
We both know that the bip9 (bit1) based activation will not trigger before=
=20
the expiration date anyway.
These worries are rather trivial to solve if you do a little bit of proper=
=20
architecture of the solution. This honestly can=E2=80=99t be a reason for =
saying NO=20
to the majority of the mining hash power giving you a break and offering a=
=20
better SegWit activation.
=2D-=20
Tom Zander
Blog: https://zander.github.io
Vlog: https://vimeo.com/channels/tomscryptochannel
|
