Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3955DAA6 for ; Thu, 13 Jul 2017 21:19:23 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-lf0-f44.google.com (mail-lf0-f44.google.com [209.85.215.44]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 251613C9 for ; Thu, 13 Jul 2017 21:19:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-lf0-f44.google.com with SMTP id b207so43771904lfg.2 for ; Thu, 13 Jul 2017 14:19:21 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=charlieshrem-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=dOBA0VB2GWfcaNwoCt13FBpcbGOhP/UCt3YxeXtp6GA=; b=DVmcRDRzTCMbwxXV1FO7EwZP7hYWWHK0+FP0R37c7r5Rg+W1qR9CIEY8g3FNXALuRA DTL/8wtpGZ0Eo9WGzzm+3f+ybP/5ZqR3ypsLOa+0k95Z4PkxPTDAq+IXNrQQivA8azya ENL4wKZXm9hcW6Vi1Z84XHMuyzHx3ICyHef0IdmXdsM9VS00DnDKrn6iuoz1GC6yUVaa sWeMt7yooNxJqYpMCr2avUK5m7GLSDas8TR2x5ERJZRt62o34VcvJiYTyvXqpN3jWlzt /O+tTRQsUwkEOz9QjizAT4aukEXseziWtKEhOPrSdsvjDaYNLDRnir7J3l7HZqDdrQlj NnAQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=dOBA0VB2GWfcaNwoCt13FBpcbGOhP/UCt3YxeXtp6GA=; b=YKdR3OzmK38up8/aLo70mqOOv1cJ6xtMb3vCsqkUcQdZrDfWU4jgyrmm1t34BrXjEx WQUg7a90gNMqVfeQQvvVfsoFGujMPH75urSweIPp4zIrhvgEROT5xdmtoSC1D8WBnp8l r8IKo+kkXQE4xKF3kRjFL/hgI9UJpG2MWgbu/TJCGoAtg3TyYvgJkEAiliYYxNNuP9sS ee3O938DPIKTE9F5kihbkujX47cageVhN8klD+TysxGolaUKrwhYL2zfgAQuwfeqVLmy 7jJeXYenuaUBWoH7eTyGSwGzKt0R9hMfS4iXJfj5iMO3yHaBzu7VL9Z3vGrJSz3/DUqr gewg== X-Gm-Message-State: AIVw112Hm3BAUfTgDg0a1rjEWTALglcfBd3FRD+22ELtnXO7YT0aYFOQ QUl6+G22SoBuuOMsresYXg== X-Received: by 10.46.77.9 with SMTP id a9mr2007703ljb.43.1499980760058; Thu, 13 Jul 2017 14:19:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lf0-f51.google.com (mail-lf0-f51.google.com. [209.85.215.51]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id u74sm1383116lja.13.2017.07.13.14.19.19 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 13 Jul 2017 14:19:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lf0-f51.google.com with SMTP id b207so43771527lfg.2 for ; Thu, 13 Jul 2017 14:19:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.25.115.85 with SMTP id o82mr2026585lfc.96.1499980758766; Thu, 13 Jul 2017 14:19:18 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.46.84.4 with HTTP; Thu, 13 Jul 2017 14:18:58 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <15d3d788980.2780.1c2d389d777ac0f91cb66d796583d663@achow101.com> References: <7869651.CRYTeDpGy9@strawberry> <15d3d788980.2780.1c2d389d777ac0f91cb66d796583d663@achow101.com> From: "Charlie 'Charles' Shrem" Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2017 17:18:58 -0400 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: To: Andrew Chow , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a113ad72c4bdfe80554397ca3" X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, 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 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 13 Jul 2017 21:22:57 +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 21:19:23 -0000 --001a113ad72c4bdfe80554397ca3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Andrew, Block 475776 and block 477792 (July 26) are the last 2 difficulty adjustment periods before Aug 1st. Charlie On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 3:48 PM, Andrew Chow via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > 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 bloc= k >> 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 Tim=C3=B3n 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 Tim=C3=B3n via bitcoin-dev = wrote: >>> > I think anything less than 1 year after release of tested code by som= e >>> > 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 an= d >>> 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 t= he >>> meaningless "base size" without touching the weight limit. As for the >>> current code, I don't think it has been properly tested today, let alon= e >>> "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 >> >> > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > > --001a113ad72c4bdfe80554397ca3 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Andrew,=C2=A0

Block 475776 and= block 477792 (July 26) are the last 2 difficulty adjustment period= s before Aug 1st.=C2=A0

Charlie

On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 3:48 PM, Andrew Chow= via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.or= g> wrote:

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 !=C2=A0 It's ju= st 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 Tim=C3=B3n via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.or= g> wrote:

<= div class=3D"gmail_extra">
On 12 Jul 2017 2:3= 1 pm, "Tom Zander via bitcoin-dev" <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
On Monday, 10 July 2017 20:38:08 CEST Jorge Tim=C3=B3n 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/listi= nfo/bitcoin-dev


_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.= linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org= /mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev


--001a113ad72c4bdfe80554397ca3--