MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAKzdR-oN6tGvGSb04_awCf=Jsf3wgKJN5xUhCr8G2D2W9YgJww@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAKzdR-oN6tGvGSb04_awCf=Jsf3wgKJN5xUhCr8G2D2W9YgJww@mail.gmail.com>
From: Btc Drak <btcdrak@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 15:40:04 +0100
Message-ID: <CADJgMztpmcC_rv_oKYn_jRhLzx2FbtxgPUshcPDJpQVZYBcJzw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sergio Demian Lerner <sergio.d.lerner@gmail.com>, 
	Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a114087a8ba9c61054c44233f
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Segwit2Mb - combined soft/hard fork - Request For
	Comments
Precedence: list

--001a114087a8ba9c61054c44233f
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 10:09 PM, Sergio Demian Lerner via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> The hard-fork is conditional to 95% of the hashing power has approved the
> segwit2mb soft-fork and the segwit soft-fork has been activated (which
> should occur 2016 blocks after its lock-in time)
>

Miners signalling they have upgraded by flipping a bit in the nVersion
field has little relevance in a hard fork. If 100% of the hash power
indicates they are running this proposal, but the nodes don't upgrade, what
will happen?

For the record, I actually talk a lot about hard forks with various
developers and am very interested in the research that Johnson in
particular is pioneering. However, I have failed to understand your point
about 95% miner signalling in relation to a hard fork, so I am eagerly
awaiting your explanation.

--001a114087a8ba9c61054c44233f
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 F=
ri, Mar 31, 2017 at 10:09 PM, Sergio Demian Lerner via bitcoin-dev <span di=
r=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" targ=
et=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<b=
r><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:=
1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div>The hard-fork is con=
ditional to 95% of the hashing power has approved the segwit2mb soft-fork a=
nd the segwit soft-fork has been activated (which should occur 2016 blocks =
after its lock-in time)</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Miners =
signalling they have upgraded by flipping a bit in the nVersion field has l=
ittle relevance in a hard fork. If 100% of the hash power indicates they ar=
e running this proposal, but the nodes don&#39;t upgrade, what will happen?=
<br></div><div><br></div><div>For the record, I actually talk a lot about h=
ard forks with various developers and am very interested in the research th=
at Johnson in particular is pioneering. However, I have failed to understan=
d your point about 95% miner signalling in relation to a hard fork, so I am=
 eagerly awaiting your explanation.</div></div></div></div>

--001a114087a8ba9c61054c44233f--