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
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
|
Return-Path: <james.hilliard1@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D98329C
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 28 May 2017 23:28:12 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-oi0-f41.google.com (mail-oi0-f41.google.com
[209.85.218.41])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3B934F3
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 28 May 2017 23:28:12 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-oi0-f41.google.com with SMTP id w10so62213838oif.0
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 28 May 2017 16:28:12 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025;
h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to
:cc:content-transfer-encoding;
bh=cKqY2Y1nD1kCcdlBlW8kTdEmcaFxkNtjFBUkNox0wvo=;
b=rlGgQtlnvyWgxgkkZjGu1eEqok/LBbFTRbD6YPmB1ZwWiTuJQROGbpl0OBO46z+EqV
SaTYF9Sqy6+I0gVPldKNJv6wpzOZBvlQJhCy/XswQmkI49kLlXtqKIM2+F98/RSG0O7T
l1JmxJKk6eIVDX8gduUjBarDhZDbTMg7L8v4/mF6rL/mTd9oxebF7V2QyRn8A/TZDOV8
6jlnzf2QXkETZgym2kzHMA+woqlCc+Nq0jYsLrH1YeHc+eGAYx/tA+iBGxKSnGn5K+yg
9wt2CeUQwprIeOCw+z5pnlEJed8hv3hGZHCrOKhU4KKuQd420+mRTIMQ+EltIJVuWSyW
Hh0Q==
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:content-transfer-encoding;
bh=cKqY2Y1nD1kCcdlBlW8kTdEmcaFxkNtjFBUkNox0wvo=;
b=jCLLZA4mjGrbROJQUsyMfPst8EEcAZIWWRd9LYSKYme6/NUo+dDnsPOsSdrV8LO1mM
62hwAhwqkW6iuX+kAuiHjjyC7vFPU0r8qcXGJuNGLasiyZpG/TQ9BmSGsZPbjJd0F3Ei
VzvyyHKszOMjqm6MSCzXppyLM5B9EvQU2BT68/1zFwsvnLl3VUbqRqMfKR3tzKZGQG6/
50x72Qq3b0pAIcoEJfZnlZaIw50Nl0s3EG7S1rZyWMT2aS2rlNFi+ZQg7KGsS/rGZxSP
WkEgG8Fc8Zh+8qLsIY0Qg24L5I1B6GTY1yqkAzLqvOPkhp5lep8GpLaVdncvxVOCe/ay
y/ZA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AODbwcAFOQAMzLRK7xLB1Km5EEqgHj5KbqN08lVKH+83qIf/zNPkEMDR
o3EKzsIQbBH9X0n8MdFnxciEcsa/Ug==
X-Received: by 10.202.196.83 with SMTP id u80mr4809216oif.207.1496014091495;
Sun, 28 May 2017 16:28:11 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.182.115.198 with HTTP; Sun, 28 May 2017 16:28:11 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <1729851.ePRgbNd32q@strawberry>
References: <CAAUaCyiHUOQ-rhN5XiGyMc6ocfsNBuH_tzK_QWu7sg1=Qd-o=Q@mail.gmail.com>
<16817995.6UCILLkEDc@strawberry>
<CADvTj4qdr2yGYFEWA7oVmL-KkrchYb5aQBRY9w0OK4ZVopSTSA@mail.gmail.com>
<1729851.ePRgbNd32q@strawberry>
From: James Hilliard <james.hilliard1@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 18:28:11 -0500
Message-ID: <CADvTj4opFPA1CGaAyuy-qys4qF40ixStntNSWO9_OpbBmTE37g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tom Zander <tomz@freedommail.ch>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT,FREEMAIL_FROM,
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
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Barry Silbert segwit agreement
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, 28 May 2017 23:28:13 -0000
On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 3:51 PM, Tom Zander via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On Saturday, 27 May 2017 01:09:10 CEST James Hilliard wrote:
>> > why?
>>
>> the main
>> issue is due to 0.13.1+ having many segwit related features active
>> already, including all the P2P components, the new network service
>> flag, the witness-tx and block messages, compact blocks v2 and
>> preferential peering.
>
> Hmm, the flags are identical in 0.13 and 0.14 clients.
>
> Either way, this is rather trivial to solve. If bugs in older clients mea=
n
> they can=E2=80=99t operate properly when SW is activated (via bit 4) but =
they don=E2=80=99t
> know its activated (since they only look at bit1), then just ban them whe=
n
> they misbehave.
> And tell people to upgrade to a version where SegWit is less buggy.
That would partition off those clients, which is not something we
would want to happen.
>
>> You would have to then have multiple activation
>> codepaths to test for such as BIP141(active)->HF BIP141(inactive)->HF
>> etc. By doing BIP141 first you then only have the BIP141(active)->HF
>> activation codepath to test for, and you also can't be sure you can
>> rely on BIP141(inactive)->HF activation codepath being the only one
>> until segwit activation expires.
>
> Heh, well, this is rather simple to solve by not having all those activat=
ion
> codepaths and just picking **one**.
This isn't possible until either BIP141 segwit is active or BIP141
segwit has expired.
>
> You can safely replace the bit1 activation code with a bit4 activation
> logic, which is based on 80% and has no end-date.
> We both know that the bip9 (bit1) based activation will not trigger befor=
e
> the expiration date anyway.
We don't know that since bip9 bit1 only needs 55% hashpower to be
triggered(see BIP91 activation method for how this can be done)
>
> These worries are rather trivial to solve if you do a little bit of prope=
r
> architecture of the solution. This honestly can=E2=80=99t be a reason fo=
r saying NO
> to the majority of the mining hash power giving you a break and offering =
a
> better SegWit activation.
BIP91 activation is clearly superior than trying to fully redeploy, it
is far simpler and can be done almost immediately with only miners
needing to upgrade.
>
> --
> 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
|
