MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAOG=w-tA0Rme_geadjaZCP4QRYb2T0y7PGCZ-QbjGVt2H+=z=w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20150819055036.GA19595@muck>
	<c20a83f511d7023f9cdd2df4713cddf9@xbt.hk>
	<CAOG=w-tA0Rme_geadjaZCP4QRYb2T0y7PGCZ-QbjGVt2H+=z=w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Btc Drak <btcdrak@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 23:11:10 +0100
Message-ID: <CADJgMztcy33cW4=SOfsmANMFCU3Q7pcLqatG9JeJCgEXnpkD+g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mark Friedenbach <mark@friedenbach.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] CLTV/CSV/etc. deployment considerations due to
 XT/Not-BitcoinXT miners
Precedence: list

I have changed BIPS 112 and 113 to reflect this amended deployment
strategy. I'm beginning to think the issues created by Bitcoin XT are
so serious it probably deserves converting OPs text into an
informational BIP.

On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 6:42 PM, Mark Friedenbach via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> No, the nVersion would be >=3D 4, so that we don't waste any version valu=
es.
>
> On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 10:32 AM, jl2012 via bitcoin-dev
> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>
>> Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev =E6=96=BC 2015-08-19 01:50 =E5=AF=AB=E5=88=B0=
:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2) nVersion mask, with IsSuperMajority()
>>>
>>> In this option the nVersion bits set by XT/Not-Bitcoin-XT miners would
>>> be masked away, prior to applying standard IsSuperMajority() logic:
>>>
>>>     block.nVersion & ~0x20000007
>>>
>>> This means that CLTV/CSV/etc. miners running Bitcoin Core would create
>>> blocks with nVersion=3D8, 0b1000. From the perspective of the
>>> CLTV/CSV/etc.  IsSuperMajority() test, XT/Not-Bitcoin-XT miners would b=
e
>>> advertising blocks that do not trigger the soft-fork.
>>>
>>> For the perpose of soft-fork warnings, the highest known version can
>>> remain nVersion=3D8, which is triggered by both XT/Not-Bitcoin-XT block=
s
>>> as well as a future nVersion bits implementation. Equally,
>>> XT/Not-Bitcoin-XT soft-fork warnings will be triggered, by having an
>>> unknown bit set.
>>>
>>> When nVersion bits is implemented by the Bitcoin protocol, the plan of
>>> setting the high bits to 0b001 still works. The three lowest bits will
>>> be unusable for some time, but will be eventually recoverable as
>>> XT/Not-Bitcoin-XT mining ceases.
>>>
>>> Equally, further IsSuperMajority() softforks can be accomplished with
>>> the same masking technique.
>>>
>>> This option does complicate the XT-coin protocol implementation in the
>>> future. But that's their problem, and anyway, the maintainers
>>> (Hearn/Andresen) has strenuously argued(5) against the use of soft-fork=
s
>>> and/or appear to be in favor of a more centralized mandatory update
>>> schedule.(6)
>>>
>>
>> If you are going to mask bits, would you consider to mask all bits excep=
t
>> the 4th bit? So other fork proposals may use other bits for voting
>> concurrently.
>>
>> And as I understand, the masking is applied only during the voting stage=
?
>> After the softfork is fully enforced with 95% support, the nVersion will=
 be
>> simply >=3D8, without any masking?
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>