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
|
Return-Path: <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 97AE340A
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 25 May 2017 19:53:31 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-ua0-f179.google.com (mail-ua0-f179.google.com
[209.85.217.179])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F074517B
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 25 May 2017 19:53:30 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-ua0-f179.google.com with SMTP id e28so121588989uah.0
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 25 May 2017 12:53:30 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=jtimon-cc.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623;
h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc;
bh=owYS+TtnSiBuSyRJi6YxKs591HVJfADsQvpgoB2Qpd8=;
b=wwIgL6fX+B6rNd+0GkHAZYLmBOaZsB8xdFf6C4qRp3e9y1WN92sTrNbnwYq+R4/m0G
t01C32UvUmkIi2JwBJNc05mqR5Z+cavDF8MeP+i1r1lsjzw1ch9cOETvOhD3Xu23iGxs
Hak3arnin0OUmPsnJwah2kUve1DndxzLQL594+f7FV293jq8K0CRT7vd8a72OY9Io3GH
YBwo4CcQEltAOo5pWEPE84rDv1PwT4ZRuu3yRYQVO66SE2GZjuJDWqIU5iXMrPKBXwqU
N0PsKuIq4reRCvMBKO2FFvp9fDgc56Lws14QsSxFOfzY4GH+NeXnoXAaLILWJMl5o6tm
UODA==
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:cc;
bh=owYS+TtnSiBuSyRJi6YxKs591HVJfADsQvpgoB2Qpd8=;
b=oXrfjAHupdeya8G0gMrd8EHLAaXD8iBY2YJ5G9VNJzOlD33WpCC1Dc3hWelE26oIbB
77jdl0N8PcUzXItaRKKs83QtRo9xLnvPAYobbgJKxnDi4vm5uzDOxl9NztfDlypJKqfP
MVpXmG1SX2/tVxDBVF8TGJqtbIuvtM6WimePEzsHT4dWiGhkUMcnQm9BGhFl+8/4vRO9
ErZKWHfvMQFVTEJvpslnIWDDVyq8Qmflz53AM2FWIal6sfPOsRoLUXZS47oslntDysOQ
1gPSuQcpeR/w+gLX1+B89Fp+R8ByKLXQiexhfTeqKB52qDQEYvbgX4GwHAZ8WhoO8z+F
vupA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AODbwcCTLSsd+guYDqDedzDNmuAJJfwVayVPsbVGSvnmIUoePB5QJr9m
Kgwuy8dUr36oEFCvMIRAdiwkjW6KxLbtHnQ=
X-Received: by 10.159.53.111 with SMTP id o102mr22145261uao.113.1495742009844;
Thu, 25 May 2017 12:53:29 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.31.37.200 with HTTP; Thu, 25 May 2017 12:53:29 -0700 (PDT)
From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 21:53:29 +0200
Message-ID: <CABm2gDrZV-dwsXc++NL6T6GgBsuVUsC9iTsXOjTbbsnfa9btVw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
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
Subject: [bitcoin-dev] Suggested changes to bip8
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: Thu, 25 May 2017 19:53:31 -0000
Hi, I didn't want to comment on
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-February/013643.html
because it seemed to me that thread was more broad.
I like bip8 very much as an extension to bip9, but I think it could be better.
With bip9, a bip9-ready node that sees a softfork activated that he is
not aware of will see a warning. See the implementation:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/validation.cpp#L1832
But with bip8, if a deployment is made at the end of the period
instead of through 95% signaling, nodes that implement bip8 but don't
implement a certain deployment that is activated can't receive such a
warning.
The solution that comes to mind is to reserve one of the nVersion for
the specific purpose of requiring that the bit is active for one block
when a deployment is locked in in this way (or maybe also when it's
activated with miners' signaling too, maybe that can be used to
simplify the way the current warnings are checked).
I expect the code changes to do this to be simple, and I'm happy to
help with it.
|
