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
|
Return-Path: <sdaftuar@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CB44F904
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 14 Nov 2016 18:17:27 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-qk0-f171.google.com (mail-qk0-f171.google.com
[209.85.220.171])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 33F1BD0
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 14 Nov 2016 18:17:27 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-qk0-f171.google.com with SMTP id x190so106006131qkb.0
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 14 Nov 2016 10:17:27 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to;
bh=s3LQWY7GOqcgQ8RHc7IiT4/tYNJYp4RWxMV4wi+a/Wg=;
b=b4+SvOiDZsx/LuPFR93KaX602WJenRmx2/llufsSkBaW4LFyys9880tJiDufU7RGEw
FOP7LWjPQn1iN+GF4hbx1sNB+ESBG/zPzgb6j2Xrw8RTJh49GjTzrVyk6txKWAULMnom
RY0DWoFAlBxe6F9BJTvW5p+TPD/kVlWK+a6h9YJN4qp9w+jx/ubNbw3BfXKXgzRvM8iX
WGL3gcvvN/OWeZls+UCKAzeCYq+Bk0Uq/GTFahvpwbU8EVaYZQoYRV6tIkOx5PVPK9Xi
WJdKssckb4SHdCzNwTbrQa83gXe4I9xU1VacUhY6cO/QjUwClIkMHYaurvplauvA0AqK
EeWw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to;
bh=s3LQWY7GOqcgQ8RHc7IiT4/tYNJYp4RWxMV4wi+a/Wg=;
b=L8GwfCMbeYAUGU5DE3MCt5eDQ8eAvEATW7QssagzkhwJWcob5mmg3rGdd8AvPXgnc3
zlLFsoQ52Ljr/BmdJmsvujKssxgu79EdwhJ7zFwPA1/5y15ANZWcnOdIb7cKlYvQdtKA
nHEn3pNgTA4+rUgfF7HC5Lw2BRGMjASHLJkCRW2lfmLuYZrqlczvDXkd4XBF+ITZChhg
Z87vn8kQt6Qyal0FntW1ulCls2kfZm3SqAdt1ZzlhiUazJaxbm9ncr+bhk6UfoFzHEWy
qYohkpv1R8GpxQ+8x/uxTCVw5ZOQSSZoc6M2j9T5fQWgqhVqlfXaRsWtt+k5LBrJ0K7H
v4jw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ABUngvel675XJmWt2fy2CswGJtQcVCojb7CtTAyIOvfCxf0re9UOdae9fZk0Td0QivauhA8ISSku3ib8UjTYqQ==
X-Received: by 10.55.5.134 with SMTP id 128mr19665383qkf.261.1479147446004;
Mon, 14 Nov 2016 10:17:26 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.140.88.133 with HTTP; Mon, 14 Nov 2016 10:17:25 -0800 (PST)
From: Suhas Daftuar <sdaftuar@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2016 13:17:25 -0500
Message-ID: <CAFp6fsGmynRXLCqKAA+iBXObGOZ2h3DVW8k5L9kSfbPmL1Y-QQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a114c819e16f260054146da99
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, HTML_MESSAGE,
RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,
RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM autolearn=no version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Subject: [bitcoin-dev] [BIP Proposal] Buried Deployments
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: Mon, 14 Nov 2016 18:17:27 -0000
--001a114c819e16f260054146da99
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Hi,
Recently Bitcoin Core merged a simplification to the consensus rules
surrounding deployment of BIPs 34, 66, and 65 (
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8391), and though the change is a
minor one, I thought it was worth documenting the rationale in a BIP for
posterity.
Here's the abstract:
Prior soft forks (BIP 34, BIP 65, and BIP 66) were activated via miner
signaling in block version numbers. Now that the chain has long since
passed the blocks at which those consensus rules have triggered, we can (as
a simplification and optimization) replace the trigger mechanism by caching
the block heights at which those consensus rules became enforced.
The full draft can be found here:
https://github.com/sdaftuar/bips/blob/buried-deployments/bip-buried-deployments.mediawiki
--001a114c819e16f260054146da99
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr">Hi,<div><br></div><div>Recently Bitcoin Core merged a simp=
lification to the consensus rules surrounding deployment of BIPs 34, 66, an=
d 65 (<a href=3D"https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8391">https://gith=
ub.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8391</a>), and though the change is a minor one=
, I thought it was worth documenting the rationale in a BIP for posterity.<=
/div><div><br></div><div>Here's the abstract:</div><div><br></div><bloc=
kquote style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 40px;border:none;padding:0px"><div><div>=
Prior soft forks (BIP 34, BIP 65, and BIP 66) were activated via miner sign=
aling in block version numbers. Now that the chain has long since passed th=
e blocks at which those consensus rules have triggered, we can (as a simpli=
fication and optimization) replace the trigger mechanism by caching the blo=
ck heights at which those consensus rules became enforced.</div></div><div>=
<br></div></blockquote><div>The full draft can be found here:=C2=A0</div><d=
iv><br></div><div><a href=3D"https://github.com/sdaftuar/bips/blob/buried-d=
eployments/bip-buried-deployments.mediawiki">https://github.com/sdaftuar/bi=
ps/blob/buried-deployments/bip-buried-deployments.mediawiki</a></div></div>
--001a114c819e16f260054146da99--
|
