diff options
| author | Btc Drak <btcdrak@gmail.com> | 2015-08-19 11:20:17 +0100 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | bitcoindev <bitcoindev@gnusha.org> | 2015-08-19 10:20:38 +0000 |
| commit | b25018a202486c4bbe22939db9532fd7433e2836 (patch) | |
| tree | d32f82bb78021320312e62ec7301aff090c5ff80 /21 | |
| parent | ec422c016b4807512c27ead702fde7b050d1bcb4 (diff) | |
| download | pi-bitcoindev-b25018a202486c4bbe22939db9532fd7433e2836.tar.gz pi-bitcoindev-b25018a202486c4bbe22939db9532fd7433e2836.zip | |
Re: [bitcoin-dev] CLTV/CSV/etc. deployment considerations due to XT/Not-BitcoinXT miners
Diffstat (limited to '21')
| -rw-r--r-- | 21/013fcf31c445cd272ad4831530cf864c8aead4 | 129 |
1 files changed, 129 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/21/013fcf31c445cd272ad4831530cf864c8aead4 b/21/013fcf31c445cd272ad4831530cf864c8aead4 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..6af123374 --- /dev/null +++ b/21/013fcf31c445cd272ad4831530cf864c8aead4 @@ -0,0 +1,129 @@ +Return-Path: <btcdrak@gmail.com> +Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org + [172.17.192.35]) + by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3C52C83D + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Wed, 19 Aug 2015 10:20:38 +0000 (UTC) +X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 +Received: from mail-yk0-f174.google.com (mail-yk0-f174.google.com + [209.85.160.174]) + by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A090510D + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Wed, 19 Aug 2015 10:20:37 +0000 (UTC) +Received: by ykdt205 with SMTP id t205so232379ykd.1 + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Wed, 19 Aug 2015 03:20:37 -0700 (PDT) +DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; + h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to + :cc:content-type; + bh=pBDlypZdVmnWeg1ul6kV4ufz9LdmZeiUO3DNSKPTAZM=; + b=qnM9V58IXXVk0gqNT8pS9eT1UJS23BoHCe7N41XtGXiKce6xOh214qlp7idIuizITg + lYQ0hHi22TGSw3nrWE6nKYGomKFQaV7E0PXsLqY36g8cgEzyJUYqgRubJiMurwWWxlYV + qVy2pGEmYGgYNoYNj+SjDR3qjxIwuW8OmQRfSESdVOqfne/B56hHXH47LzjcFLSb0JeZ + FQfILc36lrdUvQ7GQRoAUwTdLar6T8Vjhw0r7FWuOyaSQpZej13sKe/6HSbIp9ucIjaC + Wf1P37GHSP2PqnM7vvfywtmygEJt7aEJPpdlPCRrpveJEY9ObcuRSKkdT6W7dvkYoOn7 + nwLA== +X-Received: by 10.170.97.9 with SMTP id o9mr12590748yka.84.1439979636901; Wed, + 19 Aug 2015 03:20:36 -0700 (PDT) +MIME-Version: 1.0 +Received: by 10.79.37.73 with HTTP; Wed, 19 Aug 2015 03:20:17 -0700 (PDT) +In-Reply-To: <CABm2gDpBLKxKbHyWocOuyfO1VZ45yM7U1t+zVL_13LP9veXmcA@mail.gmail.com> +References: <20150819055036.GA19595@muck> + <CAOG=w-unJ+xnWFgiBO3jmgj4Q72ZH6-LOn08TwUF58trc-_WWg@mail.gmail.com> + <CABm2gDpBLKxKbHyWocOuyfO1VZ45yM7U1t+zVL_13LP9veXmcA@mail.gmail.com> +From: Btc Drak <btcdrak@gmail.com> +Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2015 11:20:17 +0100 +Message-ID: <CADJgMztmgUzy70sJ+_Xj-OFe-kvEi6eSAYoGTb4yg-yGQ9u1dw@mail.gmail.com> +To: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= <jtimon@jtimon.cc> +Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113b4874bdcc34051da762a9 +X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, + DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, HK_RANDOM_ENVFROM, + HK_RANDOM_FROM, + HTML_MESSAGE,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 +Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>, + Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com> +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 10:20:38 -0000 + +--001a113b4874bdcc34051da762a9 +Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 +Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable + +On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 10:34 AM, Jorge Tim=C3=B3n < +bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: + +> Seems like 3 is something we want to do no matter what and therefore +> is the "most future-proof" solution. +> I wonder if I can help with that (and I know there's more people that +> would be interested). +> Where's the current "non-full" nVersion bits implementation? +> Why implement a "non-full" version instead of going with the full +> implementation directly? + + +There is a simple answer to this, convenience: versionbits has not been +implemented yet, and I believe the BIP is still in review stage. As it +seems likely the remaining locktime pull requests will be ready by or +before the next major release, we need a deployment method if versionbits +is not ready (which is unlikely because no-one appears to be working on it +at the moment). Pieter indicated he is OK with another IsSuperMajority() +rollout in the interim. Personally, I dont think we should let perfection +be the enemy of progress here because at the end of the day, the deployment +method is less important than the actual featureset being proposed. + +That said, the features in the next soft fork proposal are all related and +best deployed as one featureset softfork, but moving forward, versionbits +seems essential to be able to roll out multiple features in parallel +without waiting for activation and enforcement each time. + +--001a113b4874bdcc34051da762a9 +Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 +Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable + +<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On W= +ed, Aug 19, 2015 at 10:34 AM, Jorge Tim=C3=B3n <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a hre= +f=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">bitcoi= +n-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;padd= +ing-left:1ex">Seems like 3 is something we want to do no matter what and th= +erefore<br> +is the "most future-proof" solution.<br> +I wonder if I can help with that (and I know there's more people that<b= +r> +would be interested).<br> +Where's the current "non-full" nVersion bits implementation?<= +br> +Why implement a "non-full" version instead of going with the full= +<br> +implementation directly?</blockquote><div><br></div><div>There is a simple = +answer to this, convenience: versionbits has not been implemented yet, and = +I believe the BIP is still in review stage. As it seems likely the remainin= +g locktime pull requests will be ready by or before the next major release,= + we need a deployment method if versionbits is not ready (which is unlikely= + because no-one appears to be working on it at the moment). Pieter indicate= +d he is OK with another IsSuperMajority() rollout in the interim. Personall= +y, I dont think we should let perfection be the enemy of progress here beca= +use at the end of the day, the deployment method is less important than the= + actual featureset being proposed.</div><div><br></div><div>That said, the = +features in the next soft fork proposal are all related and best deployed a= +s one featureset softfork, but moving forward, versionbits seems essential = +to be able to roll out multiple features in parallel without waiting for ac= +tivation and enforcement each time.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div= +><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div></div></div> + +--001a113b4874bdcc34051da762a9-- + |