1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
|
Return-Path: <martijn.meijering@mevs.nl>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9F1B7516
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 11 Jun 2017 13:44:19 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-qt0-f171.google.com (mail-qt0-f171.google.com
[209.85.216.171])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C889F1E2
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 11 Jun 2017 13:44:18 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-qt0-f171.google.com with SMTP id u12so103635198qth.0
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 11 Jun 2017 06:44:18 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=mevs-nl.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623;
h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to
:content-transfer-encoding;
bh=t0nbC4QUtOJ466Lj2rYNqFafuFJlh3gnlMKD5103+os=;
b=yJvF6uEwZ3+ICzVB6I7jsqZ+hCeic73yIHr120e8q0mKgkrXQ0OUuwlBlOPA6dICet
C/E65kV7IBta8tReJa1KDWMQ3wpybTHiKmrxLPNfE1iXl6BMSMMEZPz6crG3cGmeb5o2
h+i2dodAD/N9PpOj2qeQyJFSFHv6/GzGM/Wfu6Kqi2u6KiSH+lcRuNJaXCSt3+hRtzRM
siqMZGkzqVJJ0XbkoLbKJnlT3M1MKTgc3M+bsr5HgBxxjug4DOT8425NGGeuQ4ZTPaB4
l+K7s7NFGuH6xaGoNFGaex6tP3uV5yhY7jkRoi5Nm2QNH2A8fRM9gH1BNwkzOTQDurYl
UVBA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to
:content-transfer-encoding;
bh=t0nbC4QUtOJ466Lj2rYNqFafuFJlh3gnlMKD5103+os=;
b=RKor/M48OE7PVUqFgh9Lume7+woLzP3ArMLkeVRQfDEGblJAsUh8RJuDGw+fET0PN9
0fyk9zcckf4MoqZcscLYYC2ba+8bjPeAlP9OwBp523jtbbpEugjnXnHg5zwHyKqrbRGL
BKAt7IrwMsVxxBFcThLOvvjmAKCq9Q/sJ9zyy6mOtyIfwWUZM8UCj/mVDXWeal5rnmPV
M1qBq9J/zQpya2lc77IwNN4xU+ZP0QYdn7DuGvg8c/jBawyEbAp+hIciR4j/c6glUhqZ
6jBMEx1M8Iji/LSeMpPLcdYbTpUgnMJ1X/4kH1y9PqWR3n5eWpFFBvRBZCXKYmRAZGL+
N0AA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AODbwcAIo7h0xM0xqgXzO61KFDTbV0NaO3zTDbKS41APZoDi9MidkjP7
3rIHz2osEQcoZlRs1hzEtajAaQwp/YPeiwk=
X-Received: by 10.200.44.74 with SMTP id e10mr12647656qta.123.1497188657512;
Sun, 11 Jun 2017 06:44:17 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.237.55.138 with HTTP; Sun, 11 Jun 2017 06:44:17 -0700 (PDT)
From: Martijn Meijering <martijn.meijering@mevs.nl>
Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2017 15:44:17 +0200
Message-ID: <CAODYVYc7x-C5nLxtTHYh9iJuCgv0B7XADCS7DeSW8O8VMuGvbQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID,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: Sun, 11 Jun 2017 13:47:22 +0000
Subject: [bitcoin-dev] BIP149 timeout-- why so far in the future?
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2017 13:44:19 -0000
Jorge Tim=C3=B3n wrote:
"My preference would be a bip149 proposal that could be merged and
released now, but some people complain that would require more
testing, because *if you deploy bip149 and then sw gets activated pre
nov15, then you want bip149 nodes to use the old service bit for
segwit*, not the new one (you would use that one if it activates post
nov15, so that pre-bip149 nodes don't get confused)."
(emphasis added)
Why not just make sure BIP 149 will never activate unless BIP 141 has
expired unsuccessfully? 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.
|
