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
|
Return-Path: <rusty@ozlabs.org>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 06AA25B1
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 15 May 2017 01:15:51 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from ozlabs.org (ozlabs.org [103.22.144.67])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A49607C
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 15 May 2017 01:15:49 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by ozlabs.org (Postfix, from userid 1011)
id 3wR2hM0Xpgz9s8J; Mon, 15 May 2017 11:15:46 +1000 (AEST)
From: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
To: Russell O'Connor <roconnor@blockstream.io>, Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAMZUoKnjc4ezVm4FeMFA-+=g13E5ZwZCAoAjd_yL89v7qf1gEA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <201705121922.57445.luke@dashjr.org>
<CAMZUoKnzV9faJ+mBTTzTre05Ejwnx3tC4ozbiPoPUfS+7GLMTQ@mail.gmail.com>
<201705130526.59467.luke@dashjr.org>
<CAMZUoKnjc4ezVm4FeMFA-+=g13E5ZwZCAoAjd_yL89v7qf1gEA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 15 May 2017 10:44:13 +0930
Message-ID: <87tw4mly56.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,
RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP: Block signal enforcement via tx fees
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: Mon, 15 May 2017 01:15:51 -0000
Russell O'Connor via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
writes:
> On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 1:26 AM, Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org> wrote:
>
>> Versionbits change/lose their meaning after the deployment timeout. For
>> this
>> reason, the timeout must be specified so the check is skipped when that
>> occurs.
>>
>
> To add a timeout a user can optionally bundle a pair of similar
> transactions. One with the transaction version bits set and a second with
> a locktime set. The effect is the same.
I have a similar proposal to Russell; use tx nVersion. However, my
subset is simpler, and uses fewer precious nVersion bits:
1. Top version 26 bits must be 1 (say)
2. Next bit indicates positive (must have bit set) or negative (must NOT
have bit set).
3. Bottom 5 bits refer to which BIP8/9 bit we're talking about.
This only allows specifying a single bit, and only support BIP8/9-style
signalling.
I believe we can skip the timeout: miners don't signal 100% either way
anyway. If a BIP is in LOCKIN, wallets shouldn't set positive on that
bit (this gives them two weeks). Similarly, if a BIP is close to
FAILED, don't set positive on your tx. Wallets shouldn't signal until
any bit until see some minimal chance it's accepted (eg. 1 in 20 blocks).
> I recall chatting about this idea recently and my conclusion was the same
> as Peter Todd's conclusion: this will just encourage miners to false signal
> readiness with undermines both BIP 9 and BIP 8.
This is gentler on miners than a UASF flag day, and does offer some
harder-to-game signalling from bitcoin users.
False signalling miners still have the 2 week LOCKIN period to upgrade,
otherwise they can already lose money. You could argue they're *more*
likely to upgrade with a signal that significant parts of the economy
have done so.
Cheers,
Rusty.
|
