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
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
|
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 00B68721
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 23 May 2017 20:42:49 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-oi0-f50.google.com (mail-oi0-f50.google.com
[209.85.218.50])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 10BC51AE
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 23 May 2017 20:42:47 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-oi0-f50.google.com with SMTP id l18so217290798oig.2
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 23 May 2017 13:42:47 -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; bh=LUwFdzxNwy735+9DJO6Ybx3uHZMlQzUQFG561J7DmI8=;
b=Y6ZfSY7r4RVvIjLKqaWHv0xSJzcUKS34/5sNnkCpzBG2tDg201oXv+Bw4/4tZld8Ot
0B2KXdqCP+/UOSSZ2uLqDvlor7lmjdqv47QIJOHpWOPUxUd5mSAwzn9L0ANjDlcdNQpo
iSP3DM+TXGfJy9lUxAVXa50psQv+7D5KK6VvMN/fK0N5UDQL29dG+b89J+P6uMJj7TWP
KWnuSEXkrOOyh/q9jW6B6DE4RCHlqgw9aj6LNDp0qLW3RaTse4ahnhSiU31uZKdC+mxr
/5a07jFIQA+kPJK+jmls2pva5qyRx1iQkvUMq+vnARI4uc1+TyL0ipljKqxiIoeY3a87
4LwQ==
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;
bh=LUwFdzxNwy735+9DJO6Ybx3uHZMlQzUQFG561J7DmI8=;
b=sve8RtQpyMSWkux6fuLvpVm/Y7cXRr5n/uc8hmu/dSPN11terWEnjAn5ReD06qGQHw
dcn2X5BVYXPyXkGjU5b1RwTRTZ0OZSLm0br9SSe/U4Pemis0gpyiLJ2T3Qc+bd88g6k4
UuSP4mpZnPxMzzLT1QzJJ+JegmPGp5sUYWkyrhrMtTe6m6tjNcwsVpsGAaEbkqplSXPU
Yg7ucSiskMBRl3rjgykSJTSH6xPGbbSHOR2dsrt/6w5nADSWzDLcaCHnLUuSqd5WPhV+
GACtc7VWZNYL7hZCcEo8WJKoUHurNXT+lXoaTekpVyFZy25aMrMZjPFuxgFRP4+cPORb
i0Gg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AODbwcCjKUGOuFw0sNvERKAesbaatBE9Rb2JRd7kNY2PP/NTTg7UP6Bz
6ZC35rZ7he6pb8yS7OxY7ZCTd644aA==
X-Received: by 10.202.85.70 with SMTP id j67mr16262097oib.160.1495572167245;
Tue, 23 May 2017 13:42:47 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.182.130.166 with HTTP; Tue, 23 May 2017 13:42:46 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <c14039f3-637e-e56d-786a-2354b0f354e0@achow101.com>
References: <CADvTj4pQ8eJvzm9UOgC8bYm1ERGuTX7qq+a7etRe55S=KodrHQ@mail.gmail.com>
<c14039f3-637e-e56d-786a-2354b0f354e0@achow101.com>
From: James Hilliard <james.hilliard1@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 23 May 2017 16:42:46 -0400
Message-ID: <CADvTj4oQsHe3jR2Bm9n0H64ouJbAy0NiXbcmFPxD_C7PSy6L0g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Andrew Chow <achow101-lists@achow101.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
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] Reduced signalling threshold activation of
existing segwit deployment
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: Tue, 23 May 2017 20:42:49 -0000
That is incorrect, it is compatible with the current segwit
implementation because it triggers a mandatory signalling period that
will activate segwit on existing nodes.
On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 4:39 PM, Andrew Chow via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Hi James,
>
> From what I understand, this proposal is incompatible with the current
> segwit implementation with regards to the NODE_WITNESS service bit. I
> believe it could cause network partitioning if the service bit is not
> changed.
>
> Andrew
>
>
> On 5/22/2017 6:40 PM, James Hilliard via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>> I would like to propose an implementation that accomplishes the first
>> part of the Barry Silbert proposal independently from the second:
>>
>> "Activate Segregated Witness at an 80% threshold, signaling at bit 4"
>> in a way that
>>
>> The goal here is to minimize chain split risk and network disruption
>> while maximizing backwards compatibility and still providing for rapid
>> activation of segwit at the 80% threshold using bit 4.
>>
>> By activating segwit immediately and separately from any HF we can
>> scale quickly without risking a rushed combined segwit+HF that would
>> almost certainly cause widespread issues.
>>
>> Draft proposal:
>> https://github.com/jameshilliard/bips/blob/bip-segsignal/bip-segsignal.mediawiki
>>
>> Proposal text:
>> <pre>
>> BIP: segsignal
>> Layer: Consensus (soft fork)
>> Title: Reduced signalling threshold activation of existing segwit deployment
>> Author: James Hilliard <james.hilliard1@gmail.com>
>> Status: Draft
>> Type: Standards Track
>> Created: 2017-05-22
>> License: BSD-3-Clause
>> CC0-1.0
>> </pre>
>>
>> ==Abstract==
>>
>> This document specifies a method to activate the existing BIP9 segwit
>> deployment with a majority hashpower less than 95%.
>>
>> ==Definitions==
>>
>> "existing segwit deployment" refer to the BIP9 "segwit" deployment
>> using bit 1, between November 15th 2016 and November 15th 2017 to
>> activate BIP141, BIP143 and BIP147.
>>
>> ==Motivation==
>>
>> Segwit increases the blocksize, fixes transaction malleability, and
>> makes scripting easier to upgrade as well as bringing many other
>> [https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/01/26/segwit-benefits/ benefits].
>>
>> This BIP provides a way for a simple majority of miners to coordinate
>> activation of the existing segwit deployment with less than 95%
>> hashpower. For a number of reasons a complete redeployment of segwit
>> is difficulty to do until the existing deployment expires. This 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. A redeployment of segwit will need to redefine all these
>> things and doing so before expiry would greatly complicate testing.
>>
>> ==Specification==
>>
>> While this BIP is active, all blocks must set the nVersion header top
>> 3 bits to 001 together with bit field (1<<1) (according to the
>> existing segwit deployment). Blocks that do not signal as required
>> will be rejected.
>>
>> ==Deployment==
>>
>> This BIP will be deployed by a "version bits" with an 80%(this can be
>> adjusted if desired) activation threshold BIP9 with the name
>> "segsignal" and using bit 4.
>>
>> This BIP will have a start time of midnight June 1st, 2017 (epoch time
>> 1496275200) and timeout on midnight November 15th 2017 (epoch time
>> 1510704000). This BIP will cease to be active when segwit is
>> locked-in.
>>
>> === Reference implementation ===
>>
>> <pre>
>> // Check if Segregated Witness is Locked In
>> bool IsWitnessLockedIn(const CBlockIndex* pindexPrev, const
>> Consensus::Params& params)
>> {
>> LOCK(cs_main);
>> return (VersionBitsState(pindexPrev, params,
>> Consensus::DEPLOYMENT_SEGWIT, versionbitscache) ==
>> THRESHOLD_LOCKED_IN);
>> }
>>
>> // SEGSIGNAL mandatory segwit signalling.
>> if ( VersionBitsState(pindex->pprev, chainparams.GetConsensus(),
>> Consensus::DEPLOYMENT_SEGSIGNAL, versionbitscache) == THRESHOLD_ACTIVE
>> &&
>> !IsWitnessLockedIn(pindex->pprev, chainparams.GetConsensus()) &&
>> // Segwit is not locked in
>> !IsWitnessEnabled(pindex->pprev, chainparams.GetConsensus()) ) //
>> and is not active.
>> {
>> bool fVersionBits = (pindex->nVersion & VERSIONBITS_TOP_MASK) ==
>> VERSIONBITS_TOP_BITS;
>> bool fSegbit = (pindex->nVersion &
>> VersionBitsMask(chainparams.GetConsensus(),
>> Consensus::DEPLOYMENT_SEGWIT)) != 0;
>> if (!(fVersionBits && fSegbit)) {
>> return state.DoS(0, error("ConnectBlock(): relayed block must
>> signal for segwit, please upgrade"), REJECT_INVALID, "bad-no-segwit");
>> }
>> }
>> </pre>
>>
>> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/0.14...jameshilliard:segsignal-v0.14.1
>>
>> ==Backwards Compatibility==
>>
>> This deployment is compatible with the existing "segwit" bit 1
>> deployment scheduled between midnight November 15th, 2016 and midnight
>> November 15th, 2017. Miners will need to upgrade their nodes to
>> support segsignal otherwise they may build on top of an invalid block.
>> While this bip is active users should either upgrade to segsignal or
>> wait for additional confirmations when accepting payments.
>>
>> ==Rationale==
>>
>> Historically we have used IsSuperMajority() to activate soft forks
>> such as BIP66 which has a mandatory signalling requirement for miners
>> once activated, this ensures that miners are aware of new rules being
>> enforced. This technique can be leveraged to lower the signalling
>> threshold of a soft fork while it is in the process of being deployed
>> in a backwards compatible way.
>>
>> By orphaning non-signalling blocks during the BIP9 bit 1 "segwit"
>> deployment, this BIP can cause the existing "segwit" deployment to
>> activate without needing to release a new deployment.
>>
>> ==References==
>>
>> *[https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-March/013714.html
>> Mailing list discussion]
>> *[https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/v0.6.0/src/main.cpp#L1281-L1283
>> P2SH flag day activation]
>> *[[bip-0009.mediawiki|BIP9 Version bits with timeout and delay]]
>> *[[bip-0016.mediawiki|BIP16 Pay to Script Hash]]
>> *[[bip-0141.mediawiki|BIP141 Segregated Witness (Consensus layer)]]
>> *[[bip-0143.mediawiki|BIP143 Transaction Signature Verification for
>> Version 0 Witness Program]]
>> *[[bip-0147.mediawiki|BIP147 Dealing with dummy stack element malleability]]
>> *[[bip-0148.mediawiki|BIP148 Mandatory activation of segwit deployment]]
>> *[[bip-0149.mediawiki|BIP149 Segregated Witness (second deployment)]]
>> *[https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/01/26/segwit-benefits/ Segwit benefits]
>>
>> ==Copyright==
>>
>> This document is dual licensed as BSD 3-clause, and Creative Commons
>> CC0 1.0 Universal.
>> _______________________________________________
>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
|
