Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CECACC83 for ; Thu, 13 Jul 2017 19:48:54 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-pg0-f53.google.com (mail-pg0-f53.google.com [74.125.83.53]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 19BA91B4 for ; Thu, 13 Jul 2017 19:48:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pg0-f53.google.com with SMTP id j186so34385457pge.2 for ; Thu, 13 Jul 2017 12:48:54 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=achow101-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=from:to:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references:user-agent:subject :mime-version; bh=ptZMwfeIkOMkm3VOdvgUutr61APg9LyeIE2BsS8uV+c=; b=jpxJLZwXkNpcT75L69XCoT4uQM6r/YPHfumCBCbOv0BIOQ587PZG+VypA109Asiog4 mcbCiTpnCgR8sXH1tiE/Ji+RhNzxzUNXYXpZqshO+lIUweqj+4dos7EcIabbGJ34j4pK BavrYHxCRO0AgverPXKdp359rKxflk5ywpnemgzI9d1IGQL+3jkemi6IEtF0J2SxOK+X eH4VkgJSnN0NvJI/IPmhECIv3OU2bvOvke89KecET5aL1NaiHCgiyJDQnDLkcExTzY1l t6Mf2lZLDFDaabHxIkS6AybvOqB5SPQiUqoBZL/YVB6fPTW1fjkh2NaYX1mCh+5Aw4R7 aD2w== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references :user-agent:subject:mime-version; bh=ptZMwfeIkOMkm3VOdvgUutr61APg9LyeIE2BsS8uV+c=; b=ub2nBs/q98nVxh09nW3mgSNPgq1M4vqm+68pdRq78XKfzxwHfBMN0OYsUMGPC9DLUm yUupAvU3qMWrfIPYVOx/uiZJMbv/kPnVNHIVIEzlDyMKo/nOXwlnsEQTJ50ej//Pg4l+ J1Pmdf7BG1CH+QjZP9kY3VJhHp+sa8Xas3GbZxWTP/COmSK8rMFIourgHqZ7v4Yw4dbi qg5O4UGJIFLcCqCqt90bjNPBqTXOQSeekifyq3gHCRr9/CgGLeVRvlwbDdAhvVGKWv/0 N8ERsWlTXSGkYKX/EOggmhywA6q5EZomKN4vOj9qNR4MGzBWxQ9avCU9ZBC1EAgNQ3g/ kHSw== X-Gm-Message-State: AIVw111mA5tlFZoGZcR/YMiw2fs/5UX92fXhpOJ7+U91ewcwdZ1cqE4G Tyv9TNJ+lnkXL8y8 X-Received: by 10.98.224.11 with SMTP id f11mr1303569pfh.118.1499975333711; Thu, 13 Jul 2017 12:48:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.1.10.178] (c-73-189-35-88.hsd1.ca.comcast.net. [73.189.35.88]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id v9sm15105759pge.26.2017.07.13.12.48.52 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Thu, 13 Jul 2017 12:48:53 -0700 (PDT) From: Andrew Chow To: Sergio Demian Lerner , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2017 12:48:52 -0700 Message-ID: <15d3d788980.2780.1c2d389d777ac0f91cb66d796583d663@achow101.com> In-Reply-To: References: <7869651.CRYTeDpGy9@strawberry> User-Agent: AquaMail/1.10.0-403 (build: 101000001) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----------15d3d7f325d1a0e27802be91aa" X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, HTML_MESSAGE, 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: Thu, 13 Jul 2017 20:46:37 +0000 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] A Segwit2x BIP X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2017 19:48:54 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------------15d3d7f325d1a0e27802be91aa Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit What's special about block 475776? On July 13, 2017 12:23:46 PM Sergio Demian Lerner via bitcoin-dev wrote: > The BIP has been updated. > > Changes: > - The technical spec has been improved: now the block size increase is > specified in terms of weight and not in terms of bytes. > - The increase in the maximum block sigops after HF has been documented. > - Comments added about the worst case block size. > > Happy weekend! And don't forget to start signaling something before block > 475776 ! It's just 90 blocks away. > Bit 1 or 4,1 or whatever you wish, but please signal something. > > To the moon! > > > On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 2:38 PM, Jorge Timón via bitcoin-dev < > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > >> >> >> On 12 Jul 2017 2:31 pm, "Tom Zander via bitcoin-dev" > linuxfoundation.org> wrote: >> >> On Monday, 10 July 2017 20:38:08 CEST Jorge Timón via bitcoin-dev wrote: >> > I think anything less than 1 year after release of tested code by some >> > implementation would be irresponsible for any hardfork, even a very >> > simple one. >> >> Good news! >> >> Code to support 2x (the hard fork part of the proposal) has been out and >> tested for much longer than that. >> >> >> Not true. It's different code on top of segwit. The first attempt in btc1 >> (very recent) didn't even increased the size (because it changed the >> meaningless "base size" without touching the weight limit. As for the >> current code, I don't think it has been properly tested today, let alone >> "for mucj longer than 1 year. >> Anyway, I said, one year from tested release. Segwitx2 hasn't been >> released, has it? If so, too late to discuss a bip imo, the bip may end up >> being different from what has been released due to feedback (unless it is >> ignored again, of course). >> >> >> -- >> Tom Zander >> Blog: https://zander.github.io >> Vlog: https://vimeo.com/channels/tomscryptochannel >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > ------------15d3d7f325d1a0e27802be91aa Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

What's special about block 475776?

On July 13, 2017 12:23:46 PM Sergio Demian Lerner via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

The BIP has been updated.

Changes:
- The technical spec has been improved: now the block size increase is specified in terms of weight and not in terms of bytes.
- The increase in the maximum block sigops after HF has been documented.
- Comments added about the worst case block size.

Happy weekend! And don't forget to start signaling something before block 475776 !  It's just 90 blocks away.
Bit 1 or 4,1 or whatever you wish, but please signal something.

To the moon!


On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 2:38 PM, Jorge Timón via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:


On 12 Jul 2017 2:31 pm, "Tom Zander via bitcoin-dev" <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
On Monday, 10 July 2017 20:38:08 CEST Jorge Timón via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> I think anything less than 1 year after release of tested code by some
> implementation would be irresponsible for any hardfork, even a very
> simple one.

Good news!

Code to support 2x (the hard fork part of the proposal) has been out and
tested for much longer than that.

Not true. It's different code on top of segwit. The first attempt in btc1 (very recent) didn't even increased the size (because it changed the meaningless "base size" without touching the weight limit. As for the current code, I don't think it has been properly tested today, let alone "for mucj longer than 1 year.
Anyway, I said, one year from tested release. Segwitx2 hasn't been released, has it? If so, too late to discuss a bip imo, the bip may end up being different from what has been released due to feedback (unless it is ignored again, of course).



_______________________________________________
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

------------15d3d7f325d1a0e27802be91aa--