MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAODYVYc7x-C5nLxtTHYh9iJuCgv0B7XADCS7DeSW8O8VMuGvbQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAODYVYc7x-C5nLxtTHYh9iJuCgv0B7XADCS7DeSW8O8VMuGvbQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2017 16:29:08 +0200
Message-ID: <CABm2gDrqrfGxB8zJNDu8B4yz8YVoD-0hs753ZexGC6=Dhybe3w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Martijn Meijering <martijn.meijering@mevs.nl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP149 timeout-- why so far in the future?
Precedence: list

On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 3:44 PM, Martijn Meijering via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Jorge Tim=C3=B3n wrote:
> Why not just make sure BIP 149 will never activate unless BIP 141 has
> expired unsuccessfully?

Right, that would be part of it, as well as not removing the BIP141
deployment with bip9.
See https://github.com/jtimon/bitcoin/commit/62efd741740f5c75c43d78358d6318=
941e6d3c04

> If BIP 141 should unexpectly activate, then
> BIP 149 nodes would notice and act as pre-SegWit nodes indefinitely,
> but remain in consensus with BIP 141 nodes.
>
> It might be slightly less convenient for BIP 149 users to upgrade
> again, but then at least we could start deploying BIP 149 sooner.

No, if segwit activates pre nov15, bip149 nodse can detect and
interpret that just fine.
The problem if it activates post nov15, then you need a separate
service bit in the p2p network, for pre-BIP149 will think sw hasn't
activated while post-BIP149 would know it has activated.

If you release it only after nov15, you don't need to test
compatibility between the two for neither of this two cases.
Or do you? Actually you only save testing the easier case of pre-nov15
activation.


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