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
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
|
Return-Path: <earonesty@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 59528C61
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 7 Jun 2017 18:05:56 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-qt0-f172.google.com (mail-qt0-f172.google.com
[209.85.216.172])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0E43E1E2
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 7 Jun 2017 18:05:53 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-qt0-f172.google.com with SMTP id u19so15246753qta.3
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 07 Jun 2017 11:05:53 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025;
h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id
:subject:to:cc;
bh=vW7E8qR+dGfwbMIjZeLbMNS2trjtClHofnCMPJjOgfk=;
b=uTRT1kKg7fVxP1J7lFWcuzH19rz1UcCJZfnTsFvCzXxoCferqIsQ73nIEBiejqMafo
0RmYzkyMs50dRAqiHCoGx3FCOHOWtxGfcfp9cJqle3RqAEDpgLEXt3QKIn2tEqfB+R0g
BX7Uf5XWYcIhEXL1PGnqhi7w5XK6wKCwWMclVajH52z6fRNMkIYiSP+JpYWuXV4/45mV
ROzpopfEM2a32mGAE3x8ks09MxD3ROhqOQIjeC6YRzEz9N7gbD5QojNVqNp62AflQMV3
EiUpAuZsP9Tg0b+IiNYyX7sCRf641PGEd11nrPV2qrws7jtU1HDti9+xUUCHJhp2X8PX
IAKA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from
:date:message-id:subject:to:cc;
bh=vW7E8qR+dGfwbMIjZeLbMNS2trjtClHofnCMPJjOgfk=;
b=i+JVvhLH9FBGEQ/+qvoMVO8rFUSOUmiNIPxLNVrT7XEmcNT/BP4X4tmW267y/QooRa
YiLELN+Ty+ML7AkylJdmyFr/WLG9mnZOgeUfTZjGnon2xSUWymTFhc7KxKyM9Ga0rRri
FzIEKM6TBlsArknK06iNoSgBrGnKmLwb4f8wupAZpaXJT2CXYlyDI5nK65BPhTF8blpx
uFxxRMuB44xhBJ/XAyS8N9NppbjZaWsypn3v6UQ6oOEkSeBWiN4xl+a7WsdbUvIZeB+U
e951mjNVxwu0jheMzU71vIEKD2bWlOMzuB2AQGW+UWsg0Lk3Y1wzYSpzNIw+fgrs/6wU
G1Qw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AODbwcDqLKQaS0aWAKzG1BbHS3R7itI7n1z9tMmk97zFVwJXQ9Oki2/s
kwHYEB+sDlmA7W9ImFhyrCd7qCexcRXe8m0=
X-Received: by 10.200.34.98 with SMTP id p31mr45348295qtp.2.1496858753039;
Wed, 07 Jun 2017 11:05:53 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: earonesty@gmail.com
Received: by 10.237.48.102 with HTTP; Wed, 7 Jun 2017 11:05:52 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAAUaCyiKs9cDa6vC=8VpyT8vY5L8U0=H=+N48dJzLn1GMj3dmA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADvTj4qpH-t5Gx6qyn3yToyUE_GFaBE989=AWNHLKMpMNW3R+w@mail.gmail.com>
<AE5BA251-9DA6-4E34-A748-11C8CF91977C@taoeffect.com>
<CADvTj4q+oOS=DKfpiNQ6PAbksQfa1gKNfokr2Zc6PNGWqLyL4A@mail.gmail.com>
<0CDEF5A2-0BAF-46E4-8906-39D4724AF3F2@taoeffect.com>
<CADvTj4oJr38V+b=96pt7GiaMMSPujsz9wQ-5wmgM=rvWUC8Dkw@mail.gmail.com>
<CAJowKgJi-68G5Xy1_8n_BOX5e8myj08_SPiFu+cdWsRD4DNy4w@mail.gmail.com>
<CAAUaCyiKs9cDa6vC=8VpyT8vY5L8U0=H=+N48dJzLn1GMj3dmA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Erik Aronesty <erik@q32.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 14:05:52 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 3vHPNsTv6ReKcbQxMWUx_0w0eEo
Message-ID: <CAJowKgK52vo8c2v2AoSMoTzdL_YsHPNGZqJOy1HWPRdBPTb1uw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jacob Eliosoff <jacob.eliosoff@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11403b7a41021e0551629628"
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID, FREEMAIL_FROM, HTML_MESSAGE, HTML_OBFUSCATE_05_10,
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, 07 Jun 2017 18:11:18 +0000
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] User Activated Soft Fork Split Protection
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: Wed, 07 Jun 2017 18:05:56 -0000
--001a11403b7a41021e0551629628
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
> But passing it off as the safest defense is bad faith.
Without this option, a miner has to guess whether a split will be
economically impacting. With this option, his miner will automatically
switch to the chain least likely to get wiped out... as soon as a simple
majority of miners supports it.
On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 12:44 PM, Jacob Eliosoff <jacob.eliosoff@gmail.com>
wrote:
> This is not the safest defense against a split. If 70% of miners run
> "splitprotection", and 0.1% run BIP148, there's no "safety"/"defense"
> reason for splitprotection to activate segwit. It should only do so if
> *BIP148* support (NB: not just segwit support!) >50%.
>
> The truly defensive logic is "If the majority supports orphaning
> non-segwit blocks starting Aug 1, I'll join them."
>
> If the real goal of this BIP is to induce miners to run segwit, then fair
> enough. But passing it off as the safest defense is bad faith.
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 10:10 AM, Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev <
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>> This is, by far, the safest way for miners to quickly defend against a
>> chain split, much better than a -bip148 option. This allows miners to
>> defend themselves, with very little risk, since the defense is only
>> activated if the majority of miners do so. I would move for a very rapid
>> deployment. Only miners would need to upgrade. Regular users would not
>> have to concern themselves with this release.
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 6:13 AM, James Hilliard via bitcoin-dev <
>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>
>>> I think even 55% would probably work out fine simply due to incentive
>>> structures, once signalling is over 51% it's then clear to miners that
>>> non-signalling blocks will be orphaned and the rest will rapidly
>>> update to splitprotection/BIP148. The purpose of this BIP is to reduce
>>> chain split risk for BIP148 since it's looking like BIP148 is going to
>>> be run by a non-insignificant percentage of the economy at a minimum.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 12:20 AM, Tao Effect <contact@taoeffect.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> > See thread on replay attacks for why activating regardless of
>>> threshold is a
>>> > bad idea [1].
>>> >
>>> > BIP91 OTOH seems perfectly reasonable. 80% instead of 95% makes it more
>>> > difficult for miners to hold together in opposition to Core. It gives
>>> Core
>>> > more leverage in negotiations.
>>> >
>>> > If they don't activate with 80%, Core can release another BIP to
>>> reduce it
>>> > to 75%.
>>> >
>>> > Each threshold reduction makes it both more likely to succeed, but also
>>> > increases the likelihood of harm to the ecosystem.
>>> >
>>> > Cheers,
>>> > Greg
>>> >
>>> > [1]
>>> > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017
>>> -June/014497.html
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > Please do not email me anything that you are not comfortable also
>>> sharing
>>> > with the NSA.
>>> >
>>> > On Jun 6, 2017, at 6:54 PM, James Hilliard <james.hilliard1@gmail.com>
>>> > wrote:
>>> >
>>> > This is a BIP8 style soft fork so mandatory signalling will be active
>>> > after Aug 1st regardless.
>>> >
>>> > On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 8:51 PM, Tao Effect <contact@taoeffect.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > What is the probability that a 65% threshold is too low and can allow a
>>> > "surprise miner attack", whereby miners are kept offline before the
>>> > deadline, and brought online immediately after, creating potential
>>> havoc?
>>> >
>>> > (Nit: "simple majority" usually refers to >50%, I think, might cause
>>> > confusion.)
>>> >
>>> > -Greg Slepak
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > Please do not email me anything that you are not comfortable also
>>> sharing
>>> > with the NSA.
>>> >
>>> > On Jun 6, 2017, at 5:56 PM, James Hilliard via bitcoin-dev
>>> > <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Due to the proposed calendar(https://segwit2x.github.io/) for the
>>> > SegWit2x agreement being too slow to activate SegWit mandatory
>>> > signalling ahead of BIP148 using BIP91 I would like to propose another
>>> > option that miners can use to prevent a chain split ahead of the Aug
>>> > 1st BIP148 activation date.
>>> >
>>> > The splitprotection soft fork is essentially BIP91 but using BIP8
>>> > instead of BIP9 with a lower activation threshold and immediate
>>> > mandatory signalling lock-in. This allows for a majority of miners to
>>> > activate mandatory SegWit signalling and prevent a potential chain
>>> > split ahead of BIP148 activation.
>>> >
>>> > This BIP allows for miners to respond to market forces quickly ahead
>>> > of BIP148 activation by signalling for splitprotection. Any miners
>>> > already running BIP148 should be encouraged to use splitprotection.
>>> >
>>> > <pre>
>>> > BIP: splitprotection
>>> > Layer: Consensus (soft fork)
>>> > Title: User Activated Soft Fork Split Protection
>>> > Author: James Hilliard <james.hilliard1@gmail.com>
>>> > Comments-Summary: No comments yet.
>>> > Comments-URI:
>>> > Status: Draft
>>> > Type: Standards Track
>>> > Created: 2017-05-22
>>> > License: BSD-3-Clause
>>> > CC0-1.0
>>> > </pre>
>>> >
>>> > ==Abstract==
>>> >
>>> > This document specifies a coordination mechanism for a simple majority
>>> > of miners to prevent a chain split ahead of BIP148 activation.
>>> >
>>> > ==Definitions==
>>> >
>>> > "existing segwit deployment" refer to the BIP9 "segwit" deployment
>>> > using bit 1, between November 15th 2016 and November 15th 2017 to
>>> > activate BIP141, BIP143 and BIP147.
>>> >
>>> > ==Motivation==
>>> >
>>> > The biggest risk of BIP148 is an extended chain split, this BIP
>>> > provides a way for a simple majority of miners to eliminate that risk.
>>> >
>>> > This BIP provides a way for a simple majority of miners to coordinate
>>> > activation of the existing segwit deployment with less than 95%
>>> > hashpower before BIP148 activation. Due to time constraints unless
>>> > immediately deployed BIP91 will likely not be able to enforce
>>> > mandatory signalling of segwit before the Aug 1st activation of
>>> > BIP148. This BIP provides a method for rapid miner activation of
>>> > SegWit mandatory signalling ahead of the BIP148 activation date. Since
>>> > the primary goal of this BIP is to reduce the chance of an extended
>>> > chain split as much as possible we activate using a simple miner
>>> > majority of 65% over a 504 block interval rather than a higher
>>> > percentage. This BIP also allows miners to signal their intention to
>>> > run BIP148 in order to prevent a chain split.
>>> >
>>> > ==Specification==
>>> >
>>> > While this BIP is active, all blocks must set the nVersion header top
>>> > 3 bits to 001 together with bit field (1<<1) (according to the
>>> > existing segwit deployment). Blocks that do not signal as required
>>> > will be rejected.
>>> >
>>> > ==Deployment==
>>> >
>>> > This BIP will be deployed by "version bits" with a 65%(this can be
>>> > adjusted if desired) activation threshold BIP9 with the name
>>> > "splitprotecion" and using bit 2.
>>> >
>>> > This BIP starts immediately and is a BIP8 style soft fork since
>>> > mandatory signalling will start on midnight August 1st 2017 (epoch
>>> > time 1501545600) regardless of whether or not this BIP has reached its
>>> > own signalling threshold. This BIP will cease to be active when segwit
>>> > is locked-in.
>>> >
>>> > === Reference implementation ===
>>> >
>>> > <pre>
>>> > // Check if Segregated Witness is Locked In
>>> > bool IsWitnessLockedIn(const CBlockIndex* pindexPrev, const
>>> > Consensus::Params& params)
>>> > {
>>> > LOCK(cs_main);
>>> > return (VersionBitsState(pindexPrev, params,
>>> > Consensus::DEPLOYMENT_SEGWIT, versionbitscache) ==
>>> > THRESHOLD_LOCKED_IN);
>>> > }
>>> >
>>> > // SPLITPROTECTION mandatory segwit signalling.
>>> > if ( VersionBitsState(pindex->pprev, chainparams.GetConsensus(),
>>> > Consensus::DEPLOYMENT_SPLITPROTECTION, versionbitscache) ==
>>> > THRESHOLD_LOCKED_IN &&
>>> > !IsWitnessLockedIn(pindex->pprev, chainparams.GetConsensus()) &&
>>> > // Segwit is not locked in
>>> > !IsWitnessEnabled(pindex->pprev, chainparams.GetConsensus()) ) //
>>> > and is not active.
>>> > {
>>> > bool fVersionBits = (pindex->nVersion & VERSIONBITS_TOP_MASK) ==
>>> > VERSIONBITS_TOP_BITS;
>>> > bool fSegbit = (pindex->nVersion &
>>> > VersionBitsMask(chainparams.GetConsensus(),
>>> > Consensus::DEPLOYMENT_SEGWIT)) != 0;
>>> > if (!(fVersionBits && fSegbit)) {
>>> > return state.DoS(0, error("ConnectBlock(): relayed block must
>>> > signal for segwit, please upgrade"), REJECT_INVALID, "bad-no-segwit");
>>> > }
>>> > }
>>> >
>>> > // BIP148 mandatory segwit signalling.
>>> > int64_t nMedianTimePast = pindex->GetMedianTimePast();
>>> > if ( (nMedianTimePast >= 1501545600) && // Tue 01 Aug 2017 00:00:00
>>> UTC
>>> > (nMedianTimePast <= 1510704000) && // Wed 15 Nov 2017 00:00:00 UTC
>>> > (!IsWitnessLockedIn(pindex->pprev, chainparams.GetConsensus()) &&
>>> > // Segwit is not locked in
>>> > !IsWitnessEnabled(pindex->pprev, chainparams.GetConsensus())) )
>>> > // and is not active.
>>> > {
>>> > bool fVersionBits = (pindex->nVersion & VERSIONBITS_TOP_MASK) ==
>>> > VERSIONBITS_TOP_BITS;
>>> > bool fSegbit = (pindex->nVersion &
>>> > VersionBitsMask(chainparams.GetConsensus(),
>>> > Consensus::DEPLOYMENT_SEGWIT)) != 0;
>>> > if (!(fVersionBits && fSegbit)) {
>>> > return state.DoS(0, error("ConnectBlock(): relayed block must
>>> > signal for segwit, please upgrade"), REJECT_INVALID, "bad-no-segwit");
>>> > }
>>> > }
>>> > </pre>
>>> >
>>> > https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/0.14...jameshilli
>>> ard:splitprotection-v0.14.1
>>> >
>>> > ==Backwards Compatibility==
>>> >
>>> > This deployment is compatible with the existing "segwit" bit 1
>>> > deployment scheduled between midnight November 15th, 2016 and midnight
>>> > November 15th, 2017. This deployment is also compatible with the
>>> > existing BIP148 deployment. This BIP is compatible with BIP91 only if
>>> > BIP91 activates before it and before BIP148. Miners will need to
>>> > upgrade their nodes to support splitprotection otherwise they may
>>> > build on top of an invalid block. While this bip is active users
>>> > should either upgrade to splitprotection or wait for additional
>>> > confirmations when accepting payments.
>>> >
>>> > ==Rationale==
>>> >
>>> > Historically we have used IsSuperMajority() to activate soft forks
>>> > such as BIP66 which has a mandatory signalling requirement for miners
>>> > once activated, this ensures that miners are aware of new rules being
>>> > enforced. This technique can be leveraged to lower the signalling
>>> > threshold of a soft fork while it is in the process of being deployed
>>> > in a backwards compatible way. We also use a BIP8 style timeout to
>>> > ensure that this BIP is compatible with BIP148 and that BIP148
>>> > compatible mandatory signalling activates regardless of miner
>>> > signalling levels.
>>> >
>>> > By orphaning non-signalling blocks during the BIP9 bit 1 "segwit"
>>> > deployment, this BIP can cause the existing "segwit" deployment to
>>> > activate without needing to release a new deployment. As we approach
>>> > BIP148 activation it may be desirable for a majority of miners to have
>>> > a method that will ensure that there is no chain split.
>>> >
>>> > ==References==
>>> >
>>> > *[https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/20
>>> 17-March/013714.html
>>> > Mailing list discussion]
>>> > *[https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/v0.6.0/src/main.cp
>>> p#L1281-L1283
>>> > P2SH flag day activation]
>>> > *[[bip-0009.mediawiki|BIP9 Version bits with timeout and delay]]
>>> > *[[bip-0016.mediawiki|BIP16 Pay to Script Hash]]
>>> > *[[bip-0091.mediawiki|BIP91 Reduced threshold Segwit MASF]]
>>> > *[[bip-0141.mediawiki|BIP141 Segregated Witness (Consensus layer)]]
>>> > *[[bip-0143.mediawiki|BIP143 Transaction Signature Verification for
>>> > Version 0 Witness Program]]
>>> > *[[bip-0147.mediawiki|BIP147 Dealing with dummy stack element
>>> malleability]]
>>> > *[[bip-0148.mediawiki|BIP148 Mandatory activation of segwit
>>> deployment]]
>>> > *[[bip-0149.mediawiki|BIP149 Segregated Witness (second deployment)]]
>>> > *[https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/01/26/segwit-benefits/ Segwit
>>> benefits]
>>> >
>>> > ==Copyright==
>>> >
>>> > This document is dual licensed as BSD 3-clause, and Creative Commons
>>> > CC0 1.0 Universal.
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > bitcoin-dev mailing list
>>> > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>>> > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>
>>
>
--001a11403b7a41021e0551629628
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><div>> But passing it off as the safest defense is bad =
faith.<br><br>Without this option, a miner has to guess whether a split wil=
l be economically impacting.=C2=A0=C2=A0 With this option, his miner will a=
utomatically switch to the chain least likely to get wiped out... as soon a=
s a simple majority of miners supports it.=C2=A0=C2=A0 <br></div><div><br><=
/div></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Wed=
, Jun 7, 2017 at 12:44 PM, Jacob Eliosoff <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"=
mailto:jacob.eliosoff@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">jacob.eliosoff@gmail.com=
</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>This is not the safest defense against a split.=C2=A0 If 70% of miners =
run "splitprotection", and 0.1% run BIP148, there's no "=
safety"/"defense" reason for splitprotection to activate seg=
wit.=C2=A0 It should only do so if *BIP148* support (NB: not just segwit su=
pport!) >50%.<br></div><div><br></div><div>The truly defensive logic is =
"If the majority supports orphaning non-segwit blocks starting Aug 1, =
I'll join them."</div><div><br></div><div>If the real goal of this=
BIP is to induce miners to run segwit, then fair enough.=C2=A0 But passing=
it off as the safest defense is bad faith.</div><div><br></div></div><div =
class=3D"HOEnZb"><div class=3D"h5"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div clas=
s=3D"gmail_quote">On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 10:10 AM, Erik Aronesty via bitcoi=
n-dev <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfounda=
tion.org" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.<wbr>linuxfoundation.org</a>&=
gt;</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>T=
his is, by far, the safest way for miners to quickly defend against a chain=
split, much better than a -bip148 option.=C2=A0=C2=A0 This allows miners t=
o defend themselves, with very little risk, since the defense is only activ=
ated if the majority of miners do so. I would move for a very rapid deploym=
ent.=C2=A0=C2=A0 Only miners would need to upgrade.=C2=A0=C2=A0 Regular use=
rs would not have to concern themselves with this release.<br></div></div><=
div class=3D"m_4542892957492321950HOEnZb"><div class=3D"m_45428929574923219=
50h5"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Wed, Jun=
7, 2017 at 6:13 AM, James Hilliard via bitcoin-dev <span dir=3D"ltr"><<=
a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">b=
itcoin-dev@lists.linuxfounda<wbr>tion.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockqu=
ote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc s=
olid;padding-left:1ex">I think even 55% would probably work out fine simply=
due to incentive<br>
structures, once signalling is over 51% it's then clear to miners that<=
br>
non-signalling blocks will be orphaned and the rest will rapidly<br>
update to splitprotection/BIP148. The purpose of this BIP is to reduce<br>
chain split risk for BIP148 since it's looking like BIP148 is going to<=
br>
be run by a non-insignificant percentage of the economy at a minimum.<br>
<div class=3D"m_4542892957492321950m_1119537463429105949HOEnZb"><div class=
=3D"m_4542892957492321950m_1119537463429105949h5"><br>
On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 12:20 AM, Tao Effect <<a href=3D"mailto:contact@t=
aoeffect.com" target=3D"_blank">contact@taoeffect.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> See thread on replay attacks for why activating regardless of threshol=
d is a<br>
> bad idea [1].<br>
><br>
> BIP91 OTOH seems perfectly reasonable. 80% instead of 95% makes it mor=
e<br>
> difficult for miners to hold together in opposition to Core. It gives =
Core<br>
> more leverage in negotiations.<br>
><br>
> If they don't activate with 80%, Core can release another BIP to r=
educe it<br>
> to 75%.<br>
><br>
> Each threshold reduction makes it both more likely to succeed, but als=
o<br>
> increases the likelihood of harm to the ecosystem.<br>
><br>
> Cheers,<br>
> Greg<br>
><br>
> [1]<br>
> <a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/201=
7-June/014497.html" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linu=
xfoundation.<wbr>org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017<wbr>-June/014497.html</a><b=
r>
><br>
> --<br>
> Please do not email me anything that you are not comfortable also shar=
ing<br>
> with the NSA.<br>
><br>
> On Jun 6, 2017, at 6:54 PM, James Hilliard <<a href=3D"mailto:james=
.hilliard1@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">james.hilliard1@gmail.com</a>><b=
r>
> wrote:<br>
><br>
> This is a BIP8 style soft fork so mandatory signalling will be active<=
br>
> after Aug 1st regardless.<br>
><br>
> On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 8:51 PM, Tao Effect <<a href=3D"mailto:conta=
ct@taoeffect.com" target=3D"_blank">contact@taoeffect.com</a>> wrote:<br=
>
><br>
> What is the probability that a 65% threshold is too low and can allow =
a<br>
> "surprise miner attack", whereby miners are kept offline bef=
ore the<br>
> deadline, and brought online immediately after, creating potential hav=
oc?<br>
><br>
> (Nit: "simple majority" usually refers to >50%, I think, =
might cause<br>
> confusion.)<br>
><br>
> -Greg Slepak<br>
><br>
> --<br>
> Please do not email me anything that you are not comfortable also shar=
ing<br>
> with the NSA.<br>
><br>
> On Jun 6, 2017, at 5:56 PM, James Hilliard via bitcoin-dev<br>
> <<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D=
"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfounda<wbr>tion.org</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> Due to the proposed calendar(<a href=3D"https://segwit2x.github.io/" r=
el=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://segwit2x.gith<wbr>ub.io/</a>) f=
or the<br>
> SegWit2x agreement being too slow to activate SegWit mandatory<br>
> signalling ahead of BIP148 using BIP91 I would like to propose another=
<br>
> option that miners can use to prevent a chain split ahead of the Aug<b=
r>
> 1st BIP148 activation date.<br>
><br>
> The splitprotection soft fork is essentially BIP91 but using BIP8<br>
> instead of BIP9 with a lower activation threshold and immediate<br>
> mandatory signalling lock-in. This allows for a majority of miners to<=
br>
> activate mandatory SegWit signalling and prevent a potential chain<br>
> split ahead of BIP148 activation.<br>
><br>
> This BIP allows for miners to respond to market forces quickly ahead<b=
r>
> of BIP148 activation by signalling for splitprotection. Any miners<br>
> already running BIP148 should be encouraged to use splitprotection.<br=
>
><br>
> <pre><br>
> BIP: splitprotection<br>
> Layer: Consensus (soft fork)<br>
> Title: User Activated Soft Fork Split Protection<br>
> Author: James Hilliard <<a href=3D"mailto:james.hilliard1@gmail.com=
" target=3D"_blank">james.hilliard1@gmail.com</a>><br>
> Comments-Summary: No comments yet.<br>
> Comments-URI:<br>
> Status: Draft<br>
> Type: Standards Track<br>
> Created: 2017-05-22<br>
> License: BSD-3-Clause<br>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 CC0-1.0<br>
> </pre><br>
><br>
> =3D=3DAbstract=3D=3D<br>
><br>
> This document specifies a coordination mechanism for a simple majority=
<br>
> of miners to prevent a chain split ahead of BIP148 activation.<br>
><br>
> =3D=3DDefinitions=3D=3D<br>
><br>
> "existing segwit deployment" refer to the BIP9 "segwit&=
quot; deployment<br>
> using bit 1, between November 15th 2016 and November 15th 2017 to<br>
> activate BIP141, BIP143 and BIP147.<br>
><br>
> =3D=3DMotivation=3D=3D<br>
><br>
> The biggest risk of BIP148 is an extended chain split, this BIP<br>
> provides a way for a simple majority of miners to eliminate that risk.=
<br>
><br>
> This BIP provides a way for a simple majority of miners to coordinate<=
br>
> activation of the existing segwit deployment with less than 95%<br>
> hashpower before BIP148 activation. Due to time constraints unless<br>
> immediately deployed BIP91 will likely not be able to enforce<br>
> mandatory signalling of segwit before the Aug 1st activation of<br>
> BIP148. This BIP provides a method for rapid miner activation of<br>
> SegWit mandatory signalling ahead of the BIP148 activation date. Since=
<br>
> the primary goal of this BIP is to reduce the chance of an extended<br=
>
> chain split as much as possible we activate using a simple miner<br>
> majority of 65% over a 504 block interval rather than a higher<br>
> percentage. This BIP also allows miners to signal their intention to<b=
r>
> run BIP148 in order to prevent a chain split.<br>
><br>
> =3D=3DSpecification=3D=3D<br>
><br>
> While this BIP is active, all blocks must set the nVersion header top<=
br>
> 3 bits to 001 together with bit field (1<<1) (according to the<b=
r>
> existing segwit deployment). Blocks that do not signal as required<br>
> will be rejected.<br>
><br>
> =3D=3DDeployment=3D=3D<br>
><br>
> This BIP will be deployed by "version bits" with a 65%(this =
can be<br>
> adjusted if desired) activation threshold BIP9 with the name<br>
> "splitprotecion" and using bit 2.<br>
><br>
> This BIP starts immediately and is a BIP8 style soft fork since<br>
> mandatory signalling will start on midnight August 1st 2017 (epoch<br>
> time 1501545600) regardless of whether or not this BIP has reached its=
<br>
> own signalling threshold. This BIP will cease to be active when segwit=
<br>
> is locked-in.<br>
><br>
> =3D=3D=3D Reference implementation =3D=3D=3D<br>
><br>
> <pre><br>
> // Check if Segregated Witness is Locked In<br>
> bool IsWitnessLockedIn(const CBlockIndex* pindexPrev, const<br>
> Consensus::Params& params)<br>
> {<br>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0LOCK(cs_main);<br>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0return (VersionBitsState(pindexPrev, params,<br>
> Consensus::DEPLOYMENT_SEGWIT, versionbitscache) =3D=3D<br>
> THRESHOLD_LOCKED_IN);<br>
> }<br>
><br>
> // SPLITPROTECTION mandatory segwit signalling.<br>
> if ( VersionBitsState(pindex->pprev<wbr>, chainparams.GetConsensus(=
),<br>
> Consensus::DEPLOYMENT_SPLITPRO<wbr>TECTION, versionbitscache) =3D=3D<b=
r>
> THRESHOLD_LOCKED_IN &&<br>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 !IsWitnessLockedIn(pindex->ppr<wbr>ev, chainparams.Get=
Consensus()) &&<br>
> // Segwit is not locked in<br>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 !IsWitnessEnabled(pindex->ppre<wbr>v, chainparams.GetC=
onsensus()) ) //<br>
> and is not active.<br>
> {<br>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0bool fVersionBits =3D (pindex->nVersion & VERSIONBI=
TS_TOP_MASK) =3D=3D<br>
> VERSIONBITS_TOP_BITS;<br>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0bool fSegbit =3D (pindex->nVersion &<br>
> VersionBitsMask(chainparams.Ge<wbr>tConsensus(),<br>
> Consensus::DEPLOYMENT_SEGWIT)) !=3D 0;<br>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0if (!(fVersionBits && fSegbit)) {<br>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0return state.DoS(0, error("ConnectBlock=
(): relayed block must<br>
> signal for segwit, please upgrade"), REJECT_INVALID, "bad-no=
-segwit");<br>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0}<br>
> }<br>
><br>
> // BIP148 mandatory segwit signalling.<br>
> int64_t nMedianTimePast =3D pindex->GetMedianTimePast();<br>
> if ( (nMedianTimePast >=3D 1501545600) &&=C2=A0 // Tue 01 A=
ug 2017 00:00:00 UTC<br>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 (nMedianTimePast <=3D 1510704000) &&=C2=A0 // =
Wed 15 Nov 2017 00:00:00 UTC<br>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 (!IsWitnessLockedIn(pindex->pp<wbr>rev, chainparams.Ge=
tConsensus()) &&<br>
> // Segwit is not locked in<br>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0!IsWitnessEnabled(pindex->ppr<wbr>ev, chainparam=
s.GetConsensus())) )<br>
> // and is not active.<br>
> {<br>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0bool fVersionBits =3D (pindex->nVersion & VERSIONBI=
TS_TOP_MASK) =3D=3D<br>
> VERSIONBITS_TOP_BITS;<br>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0bool fSegbit =3D (pindex->nVersion &<br>
> VersionBitsMask(chainparams.Ge<wbr>tConsensus(),<br>
> Consensus::DEPLOYMENT_SEGWIT)) !=3D 0;<br>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0if (!(fVersionBits && fSegbit)) {<br>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0return state.DoS(0, error("ConnectBlock=
(): relayed block must<br>
> signal for segwit, please upgrade"), REJECT_INVALID, "bad-no=
-segwit");<br>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0}<br>
> }<br>
> </pre><br>
><br>
> <a href=3D"https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/0.14...jameshill=
iard:splitprotection-v0.14.1" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://=
github.com/bitcoin/bit<wbr>coin/compare/0.14...jameshilli<wbr>ard:splitprot=
ection-v0.14.1</a><br>
><br>
> =3D=3DBackwards Compatibility=3D=3D<br>
><br>
> This deployment is compatible with the existing "segwit" bit=
1<br>
> deployment scheduled between midnight November 15th, 2016 and midnight=
<br>
> November 15th, 2017. This deployment is also compatible with the<br>
> existing BIP148 deployment. This BIP is compatible with BIP91 only if<=
br>
> BIP91 activates before it and before BIP148. Miners will need to<br>
> upgrade their nodes to support splitprotection otherwise they may<br>
> build on top of an invalid block. While this bip is active users<br>
> should either upgrade to splitprotection or wait for additional<br>
> confirmations when accepting payments.<br>
><br>
> =3D=3DRationale=3D=3D<br>
><br>
> Historically we have used IsSuperMajority() to activate soft forks<br>
> such as BIP66 which has a mandatory signalling requirement for miners<=
br>
> once activated, this ensures that miners are aware of new rules being<=
br>
> enforced. This technique can be leveraged to lower the signalling<br>
> threshold of a soft fork while it is in the process of being deployed<=
br>
> in a backwards compatible way. We also use a BIP8 style timeout to<br>
> ensure that this BIP is compatible with BIP148 and that BIP148<br>
> compatible mandatory signalling activates regardless of miner<br>
> signalling levels.<br>
><br>
> By orphaning non-signalling blocks during the BIP9 bit 1 "segwit&=
quot;<br>
> deployment, this BIP can cause the existing "segwit" deploym=
ent to<br>
> activate without needing to release a new deployment. As we approach<b=
r>
> BIP148 activation it may be desirable for a majority of miners to have=
<br>
> a method that will ensure that there is no chain split.<br>
><br>
> =3D=3DReferences=3D=3D<br>
><br>
> *[<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2=
017-March/013714.html" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.l=
inuxfoundatio<wbr>n.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/20<wbr>17-March/013714.html</=
a><br>
> Mailing list discussion]<br>
> *[<a href=3D"https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/v0.6.0/src/main.c=
pp#L1281-L1283" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://github.com/bit=
coin/b<wbr>itcoin/blob/v0.6.0/src/main.cp<wbr>p#L1281-L1283</a><br>
> P2SH flag day activation]<br>
> *[[bip-0009.mediawiki|BIP9 Version bits with timeout and delay]]<br>
> *[[bip-0016.mediawiki|BIP16 Pay to Script Hash]]<br>
> *[[bip-0091.mediawiki|BIP91 Reduced threshold Segwit MASF]]<br>
> *[[bip-0141.mediawiki|BIP141 Segregated Witness (Consensus layer)]]<br=
>
> *[[bip-0143.mediawiki|BIP143 Transaction Signature Verification for<br=
>
> Version 0 Witness Program]]<br>
> *[[bip-0147.mediawiki|BIP147 Dealing with dummy stack element malleabi=
lity]]<br>
> *[[bip-0148.mediawiki|BIP148 Mandatory activation of segwit deployment=
]]<br>
> *[[bip-0149.mediawiki|BIP149 Segregated Witness (second deployment)]]<=
br>
> *[<a href=3D"https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/01/26/segwit-benefits/" r=
el=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://bitcoincore.org/en/2<wbr>016/01=
/26/segwit-benefits/</a> Segwit benefits]<br>
><br>
> =3D=3DCopyright=3D=3D<br>
><br>
> This document is dual licensed as BSD 3-clause, and Creative Commons<b=
r>
> CC0 1.0 Universal.<br>
> ______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
> bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
> <a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_bl=
ank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundat<wbr>ion.org</a><br>
> <a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-=
dev" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.<wb=
r>org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-d<wbr>ev</a><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">=
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundat<wbr>ion.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" =
rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.<wbr>org=
/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-d<wbr>ev</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>
</div></div><br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">=
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundat<wbr>ion.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" =
rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.<wbr>org=
/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-d<wbr>ev</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>
--001a11403b7a41021e0551629628--
|