MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAMnpzfqqmTFkf_HKPb18ijm-bYja_MpRofBYNXd3TkqVLsJhNw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAS2fgQNPvEuta0KubeDetgYxGhWvdGK10jig0y4ayv0EvZPLw@mail.gmail.com>
	<87r2ze2833.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>
	<63d03825-da9b-328d-56b8-0d062f3e0c62@mattcorallo.com>
	<87inkn14gq.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>
	<CAMnpzfqqmTFkf_HKPb18ijm-bYja_MpRofBYNXd3TkqVLsJhNw@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2017 15:17:43 +0200
Message-ID: <CABm2gDqr=SHgva4H1sBtW_k8-5RxupSzq+zanmz21e=X2P=6Gg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ryan Grant <bitcoin-dev@rgrant.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP149 timeout-- why so far in the future?
Precedence: list

The current proposal assumes that bip149 would only be merged and
released after nov15, so there's not time in one day.

My preference would be a bip149 proposal that could be merged and
released now, but some people complain that would require more
testing, because if you deploy bip149 and then sw gets activated pre
nov15, then you want bip149 nodes to use the old service bit for
segwit, not the new one (you would use that one if it activates post
nov15, so that pre-bip149 nodes don't get confused).

I was slowly modifying shaolinfry's code to try to code that, but I'm
currently not working on it because there doesn't seem there's a lot
of interest in releasing bip149 before nov15...

https://github.com/jtimon/bitcoin/commits/b15-shaolinfry-bip149


On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 7:48 AM, Ryan Grant via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Is there any reason that BIP149 activation on November 16th would
> cause a problem?
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev