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
|
Return-Path: <laanwj@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 12104FEF
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 29 Sep 2015 20:03:06 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-wi0-f178.google.com (mail-wi0-f178.google.com
[209.85.212.178])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 82C801FC
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 29 Sep 2015 20:03:05 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by wicge5 with SMTP id ge5so166608253wic.0
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 29 Sep 2015 13:03:04 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version
:content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to;
bh=+EbA1fcuMMvLKgCRPrQ18GVeEhMga5hqgGACUt0aV5Y=;
b=KDv6LnSdX/Zv52EaLcJjZB6JdBsy4brZVe6os2/7yntx9LxFSv9PRJiF5EVARKEwU0
7w0UqK6wUm+osufYcZXcPOvQw6eJRQzB9csbbxmwNSZhIMXjcrJ+BE6scdiLdAY+gnc+
rhbHx+MhqWDvQsyNDd1+MAWb/wVJIk/iDcK0C/ZgyULeLvlK0OLMi8iPKqi4P/7PZ32s
E/E8PkCEti3l+BiPLLBgyZ/JA1vneK0ND167SkQsOG6YxletljnXqRFthJmlXKMxaBpn
PPF6OkwO81BS1VVHEdQ+qotJPxWdq0celmCPG0RJnuP5GmaM6oYObrgGVncVna8uprsS
qkGA==
X-Received: by 10.180.182.14 with SMTP id ea14mr533361wic.23.1443556984331;
Tue, 29 Sep 2015 13:03:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from amethyst.visucore.com (dhcp-089-098-228-253.chello.nl.
[89.98.228.253]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id
bh5sm25589377wjb.42.2015.09.29.13.03.03
(version=TLS1_2 cipher=AES128-SHA256 bits=128/128);
Tue, 29 Sep 2015 13:03:03 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2015 22:03:04 +0200
From: "Wladimir J. van der Laan" <laanwj@gmail.com>
To: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
Message-ID: <20150929200302.GA5051@amethyst.visucore.com>
References: <20150927185031.GA20599@savin.petertodd.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20150927185031.GA20599@savin.petertodd.org>
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM,
RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Let's deploy BIP65 CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY!
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Development 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: Tue, 29 Sep 2015 20:03:06 -0000
On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 02:50:31PM -0400, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> It's time to deploy BIP65 CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY.
There appears to be common agreement on that.
The only source of some controversy is how to deploy: versionbits versus
IsSuperMajority. I think the versionbits proposal should first have code
out there for longer before we consider it for concrete softforks. Haste-ing
along versionbits because CLTV is wanted would be risky.
> I've backported the CLTV op-code and a IsSuperMajority() soft-fork to
> the v0.10 and v0.11 branches, pull-reqs #6706 and #6707 respectively. A
> pull-req for git HEAD for the soft-fork deployment has been open since
> June 28th, #6351 - the opcode implementation itself was merged two
> months ago.
> We should release a v0.10.3 and v0.11.1 with CLTV and get the ball
> rolling on miner adoption. We have consensus that we need CLTV, we have
> a well tested implementation, and we have a well-tested deployment
> mechanism.
As you say, the underlying code has been merged for months in master, and #6351
seems to have had quite some eyes on it already.
It does need to be made sure that the backports are correct, however.
Although the tests do provide some assurance, I think those two pulls
require more review.
After they are merged, a 0.10.3 and 0.11.1 release can be rolled out (with RC
cycle).
> We also don't need to wait for other soft-fork proposals to
> catch up - starting the CLTV deployment process isn't going to delay
> future soft-forks, or for that matter, hard-forks.
>
> I think it's possible to safely get CLTV live on mainnet before the end
> of the year. It's time we get this over with and done.
Wladimir
|
