summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/bc/b6d8c9cf23992c0dabd3d8be93cbc2379d081e
blob: 9bc25aa280da2bf2714f03403d849b2bab4eee56 (plain)
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
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
Return-Path: <earonesty@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
	[172.17.192.35])
	by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C1452B35
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Wed, 24 May 2017 16:44:58 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-qk0-f175.google.com (mail-qk0-f175.google.com
	[209.85.220.175])
	by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5BE4C1FC
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Wed, 24 May 2017 16:44:57 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-qk0-f175.google.com with SMTP id y201so158250840qka.0
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Wed, 24 May 2017 09:44:57 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025;
	h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id
	:subject:to:cc;
	bh=dP7XXfvXJGXX3Mqwk5L2hvrN8Mu5slWl+X2ZL93VdpY=;
	b=VhNkBGAY5r6IYbysx8vZsp3m88Gi8dpdrzC/uYmrHmcjxnxfcgiKNzqk9G88sfFOdO
	hYpPjhU8Fx0qWBbzcZb9QWPShh0tzFEAOgAYTDR/JR1jpBAKOlVRCYnSXEODRC4uaceV
	1tE4zq7A6jFWLpTeU5fXfq5R+JijzrLPRvQAkZVQBdVrcMEvhE+UgqkGnEMIR1SJ4cof
	lpKZHe8ETm/2wSG3rq9fmEIC0uekq1MHx5dpiHnh5dPvEEdel5hIGTHsIQ9gFSlr40ev
	K5YVs3W8cRU3PNtY/anqlg2xpatcLf7NnFti1ubEvrv4oLzZNZSGrQ/yBDo+uhBYeO4e
	DVyg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
	d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
	h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from
	:date:message-id:subject:to:cc;
	bh=dP7XXfvXJGXX3Mqwk5L2hvrN8Mu5slWl+X2ZL93VdpY=;
	b=HO1LlnQFzWi9zqTZe1p66NP66ErvzKGLtXBTOnVw/Qd/iLbH9xBxNXEdSvZ8wE7YO2
	eQ1EYgxeEUXpNgjY/eKt2MPQwzAptxqXlZFthAmCE8FCdzGhoiXi6xvSXjG5otYD1kgv
	ylAUKrLmbEcKjnyT4dXwWykE3zJ8KGaM79w0+ekiPoB9p/uZMjV+BCYDLdsX5tD0kjlg
	887gyigJpwuckfv4WUerBNHBc8yYVRjODp/Y/RBiywS4J+8TYM7BXB4CMA2lwEU0UZVQ
	i6NkLAyhGp7dHzin2o8uShTVf+Gxbsend+/vpn1u6vhBLmii0TiEBZbofi/7y1EZKVG/
	6DvQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AODbwcDv13g0DvPTXn+LZ2bnT7J/G9zeQIRYbvTGGgh64/P9LPDCOimF
	iQGWuwfphCKtB0hlYUWibzg/8je0p0T9
X-Received: by 10.233.220.71 with SMTP id q68mr30082489qkf.199.1495644296454; 
	Wed, 24 May 2017 09:44:56 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: earonesty@gmail.com
Received: by 10.237.48.102 with HTTP; Wed, 24 May 2017 09:44:55 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4C86CB4F-4ED2-4908-BF5D-6115891DA1D4@gmail.com>
References: <CADvTj4pQ8eJvzm9UOgC8bYm1ERGuTX7qq+a7etRe55S=KodrHQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<c14039f3-637e-e56d-786a-2354b0f354e0@achow101.com>
	<CADvTj4oQsHe3jR2Bm9n0H64ouJbAy0NiXbcmFPxD_C7PSy6L0g@mail.gmail.com>
	<cc20efe1-c5d4-0b79-48d9-65466834dbcf@achow101.com>
	<4C86CB4F-4ED2-4908-BF5D-6115891DA1D4@gmail.com>
From: Erik Aronesty <erik@q32.com>
Date: Wed, 24 May 2017 12:44:55 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 2DRL9euaol1RZVx-TST1L3hfXIY
Message-ID: <CAJowKg+bD675iC9FUAP82KVUZteox9MGnd-EXqKr2tuQsCC5nA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Wang Chun <1240902@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c0438e0002879055047d30c"
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
	DKIM_VALID, FREEMAIL_FROM, HTML_MESSAGE, 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
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 24 May 2017 16:50:38 +0000
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: Wed, 24 May 2017 16:44:58 -0000

--94eb2c0438e0002879055047d30c
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Yes, 75% seems fine - given that there is a already a wide deployment of
segwit enforcing nodes

This implementation is 100% compatible with a "UASF movement" since, if
triggered, it essentially turns all supporting miners into equivalent
BIP148 enforcers.   This should allay any fears that this would subvert a
UASF.

The proposed "agreement" which was reached without input from the
development community also apparently requires that a hard fork be locked
in on the same bit (bit 4).

Ideally, such a 2MB increase should be scheduled using BIP103-esqe logic:
Gradually increasing from 1MB to 2MB over the course of at least a couple
years, beginning 6 months from lock-in.

This will give developers ample time to evaluate and react to network
impacts.


On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 12:02 PM, Wang Chun via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> I think we should go for 75%, same Litecoin. As I have said before, 95%
> threshold is too high even for unconventional soft forks.
>
> > =E5=9C=A8 2017=E5=B9=B45=E6=9C=8824=E6=97=A5=EF=BC=8C04:58=EF=BC=8CAndr=
ew Chow via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.
> linuxfoundation.org> =E5=86=99=E9=81=93=EF=BC=9A
> >
> > Ah. I see now. It wasn't very clear to me that that is what will happen=
.
> >
> > Also, shouldn't the timeout date be set for before the BIP141 timeout?
> > Otherwise this could lock in but not have enough time for Segwit to be
> > locked in.
> >
> >
> >> On 5/23/2017 4:42 PM, James Hilliard wrote:
> >> 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 curren=
t
> >>> 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 firs=
t
> >>>> 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 rap=
id
> >>>> 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>
> >>>>
> >>>> =3D=3DAbstract=3D=3D
> >>>>
> >>>> This document specifies a method to activate the existing BIP9 segwi=
t
> >>>> deployment with a majority hashpower less than 95%.
> >>>>
> >>>> =3D=3DDefinitions=3D=3D
> >>>>
> >>>> "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.
> >>>>
> >>>> =3D=3DMotivation=3D=3D
> >>>>
> >>>> 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 coordinat=
e
> >>>> 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 d=
ue
> >>>> 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.
> >>>>
> >>>> =3D=3DSpecification=3D=3D
> >>>>
> >>>> While this BIP is active, all blocks must set the nVersion header to=
p
> >>>> 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.
> >>>>
> >>>> =3D=3DDeployment=3D=3D
> >>>>
> >>>> This BIP will be deployed by a "version bits" with an 80%(this can b=
e
> >>>> 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 ti=
me
> >>>> 1496275200) and timeout on midnight November 15th 2017 (epoch time
> >>>> 1510704000). This BIP will cease to be active when segwit is
> >>>> locked-in.
> >>>>
> >>>> =3D=3D=3D Reference implementation =3D=3D=3D
> >>>>
> >>>> <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) =3D=3D
> >>>> THRESHOLD_LOCKED_IN);
> >>>> }
> >>>>
> >>>> // SEGSIGNAL mandatory segwit signalling.
> >>>> if ( VersionBitsState(pindex->pprev, chainparams.GetConsensus(),
> >>>> Consensus::DEPLOYMENT_SEGSIGNAL, versionbitscache) =3D=3D
> THRESHOLD_ACTIVE
> >>>> &&
> >>>>     !IsWitnessLockedIn(pindex->pprev, chainparams.GetConsensus()) &&
> >>>> // Segwit is not locked in
> >>>>     !IsWitnessEnabled(pindex->pprev, chainparams.GetConsensus()) ) /=
/
> >>>> and is not active.
> >>>> {
> >>>>    bool fVersionBits =3D (pindex->nVersion & VERSIONBITS_TOP_MASK) =
=3D=3D
> >>>> VERSIONBITS_TOP_BITS;
> >>>>    bool fSegbit =3D (pindex->nVersion &
> >>>> VersionBitsMask(chainparams.GetConsensus(),
> >>>> Consensus::DEPLOYMENT_SEGWIT)) !=3D 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
> >>>>
> >>>> =3D=3DBackwards Compatibility=3D=3D
> >>>>
> >>>> This deployment is compatible with the existing "segwit" bit 1
> >>>> deployment scheduled between midnight November 15th, 2016 and midnig=
ht
> >>>> November 15th, 2017. Miners will need to upgrade their nodes to
> >>>> support segsignal otherwise they may build on top of an invalid bloc=
k.
> >>>> While this bip is active users should either upgrade to segsignal or
> >>>> wait for additional confirmations when accepting payments.
> >>>>
> >>>> =3D=3DRationale=3D=3D
> >>>>
> >>>> Historically we have used IsSuperMajority() to activate soft forks
> >>>> such as BIP66 which has a mandatory signalling requirement for miner=
s
> >>>> once activated, this ensures that miners are aware of new rules bein=
g
> >>>> enforced. This technique can be leveraged to lower the signalling
> >>>> threshold of a soft fork while it is in the process of being deploye=
d
> >>>> 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.
> >>>>
> >>>> =3D=3DReferences=3D=3D
> >>>>
> >>>> *[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]
> >>>>
> >>>> =3D=3DCopyright=3D=3D
> >>>>
> >>>> 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
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>

--94eb2c0438e0002879055047d30c
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">Yes, 75% seems fine - given that there is a already a wide=
 deployment of segwit enforcing nodes<br><br>This implementation is 100% co=
mpatible with a &quot;UASF movement&quot; since, if triggered, it essential=
ly turns all supporting miners into equivalent BIP148 enforcers. =C2=A0 Thi=
s should allay any fears that this would subvert a UASF.<br><br>The propose=
d &quot;agreement&quot; which was reached without input from the developmen=
t community also apparently requires that a hard fork be locked in on the s=
ame bit (bit 4). =C2=A0 <br><br>Ideally, such a 2MB increase should be sche=
duled using BIP103-esqe logic: Gradually increasing from 1MB to 2MB over th=
e course of at least a couple years, beginning 6 months from lock-in.<br><b=
r>This will give developers ample time to evaluate and react to network imp=
acts.<div><br></div></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmai=
l_quote">On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 12:02 PM, Wang Chun via bitcoin-dev <span =
dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" ta=
rget=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt;</span> wrote:=
<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-lef=
t:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">I think we should go for 75%, same Litec=
oin. As I have said before, 95% threshold is too high even for unconvention=
al soft forks.<br>
<div class=3D"HOEnZb"><div class=3D"h5"><br>
&gt; =E5=9C=A8 2017=E5=B9=B45=E6=9C=8824=E6=97=A5=EF=BC=8C04:58=EF=BC=8CAnd=
rew Chow via bitcoin-dev &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfound=
ation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.<wbr>linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt; =E5=86=99=E9=
=81=93=EF=BC=9A<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; Ah. I see now. It wasn&#39;t very clear to me that that is what will h=
appen.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; Also, shouldn&#39;t the timeout date be set for before the BIP141 time=
out?<br>
&gt; Otherwise this could lock in but not have enough time for Segwit to be=
<br>
&gt; locked in.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; On 5/23/2017 4:42 PM, James Hilliard wrote:<br>
&gt;&gt; That is incorrect, it is compatible with the current segwit<br>
&gt;&gt; implementation because it triggers a mandatory signalling period t=
hat<br>
&gt;&gt; will activate segwit on existing nodes.<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 4:39 PM, Andrew Chow via bitcoin-dev<br>
&gt;&gt; &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitco=
in-dev@lists.<wbr>linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt; wrote:<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; Hi James,<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; From what I understand, this proposal is incompatible with the=
 current<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; segwit implementation with regards to the NODE_WITNESS service=
 bit. I<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; believe it could cause network partitioning if the service bit=
 is not<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; changed.<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; Andrew<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; On 5/22/2017 6:40 PM, James Hilliard via bitcoin-dev wrote=
:<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; I would like to propose an implementation that accomplishe=
s the first<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; part of the Barry Silbert proposal independently from the =
second:<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &quot;Activate Segregated Witness at an 80% threshold, sig=
naling at bit 4&quot;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; in a way that<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; The goal here is to minimize chain split risk and network =
disruption<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; while maximizing backwards compatibility and still providi=
ng for rapid<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; activation of segwit at the 80% threshold using bit 4.<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; By activating segwit immediately and separately from any H=
F we can<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; scale quickly without risking a rushed combined segwit+HF =
that would<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; almost certainly cause widespread issues.<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; Draft proposal:<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; <a href=3D"https://github.com/jameshilliard/bips/blob/bip-=
segsignal/bip-segsignal.mediawiki" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">htt=
ps://github.com/<wbr>jameshilliard/bips/blob/bip-<wbr>segsignal/bip-segsign=
al.<wbr>mediawiki</a><br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; Proposal text:<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &lt;pre&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;=C2=A0 BIP: segsignal<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;=C2=A0 Layer: Consensus (soft fork)<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;=C2=A0 Title: Reduced signalling threshold activation of ex=
isting segwit deployment<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;=C2=A0 Author: James Hilliard &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:james.h=
illiard1@gmail.com">james.hilliard1@gmail.com</a>&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;=C2=A0 Status: Draft<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;=C2=A0 Type: Standards Track<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;=C2=A0 Created: 2017-05-22<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;=C2=A0 License: BSD-3-Clause<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0CC0-1.0<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &lt;/pre&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; =3D=3DAbstract=3D=3D<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; This document specifies a method to activate the existing =
BIP9 segwit<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; deployment with a majority hashpower less than 95%.<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; =3D=3DDefinitions=3D=3D<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &quot;existing segwit deployment&quot; refer to the BIP9 &=
quot;segwit&quot; deployment<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; using bit 1, between November 15th 2016 and November 15th =
2017 to<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; activate BIP141, BIP143 and BIP147.<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; =3D=3DMotivation=3D=3D<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; Segwit increases the blocksize, fixes transaction malleabi=
lity, and<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; makes scripting easier to upgrade as well as bringing many=
 other<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; [<a href=3D"https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/01/26/segwit-b=
enefits/" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://bitcoincore.org/en/<=
wbr>2016/01/26/segwit-benefits/</a> benefits].<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; This BIP provides a way for a simple majority of miners to=
 coordinate<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; activation of the existing segwit deployment with less tha=
n 95%<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; hashpower. For a number of reasons a complete redeployment=
 of segwit<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; is difficulty to do until the existing deployment expires.=
 This is due<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; to 0.13.1+ having many segwit related features active alre=
ady,<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; including all the P2P components, the new network service =
flag, the<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; witness-tx and block messages, compact blocks v2 and prefe=
rential<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; peering. A redeployment of segwit will need to redefine al=
l these<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; things and doing so before expiry would greatly complicate=
 testing.<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; =3D=3DSpecification=3D=3D<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; While this BIP is active, all blocks must set the nVersion=
 header top<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; 3 bits to 001 together with bit field (1&lt;&lt;1) (accord=
ing to the<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; existing segwit deployment). Blocks that do not signal as =
required<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; will be rejected.<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; =3D=3DDeployment=3D=3D<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; This BIP will be deployed by a &quot;version bits&quot; wi=
th an 80%(this can be<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; adjusted if desired) activation threshold BIP9 with the na=
me<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &quot;segsignal&quot; and using bit 4.<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; This BIP will have a start time of midnight June 1st, 2017=
 (epoch time<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; 1496275200) and timeout on midnight November 15th 2017 (ep=
och time<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; 1510704000). This BIP will cease to be active when segwit =
is<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; locked-in.<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; =3D=3D=3D Reference implementation =3D=3D=3D<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &lt;pre&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; // Check if Segregated Witness is Locked In<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; bool IsWitnessLockedIn(const CBlockIndex* pindexPrev, cons=
t<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; Consensus::Params&amp; params)<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; {<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;=C2=A0 =C2=A0 LOCK(cs_main);<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;=C2=A0 =C2=A0 return (VersionBitsState(pindexPrev, params,<=
br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; Consensus::DEPLOYMENT_SEGWIT, versionbitscache) =3D=3D<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; THRESHOLD_LOCKED_IN);<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; }<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; // SEGSIGNAL mandatory segwit signalling.<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; if ( VersionBitsState(pindex-&gt;<wbr>pprev, chainparams.G=
etConsensus(),<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; Consensus::DEPLOYMENT_<wbr>SEGSIGNAL, versionbitscache) =
=3D=3D THRESHOLD_ACTIVE<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &amp;&amp;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0!IsWitnessLockedIn(pindex-&gt;<wbr>ppre=
v, chainparams.GetConsensus()) &amp;&amp;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; // Segwit is not locked in<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0!IsWitnessEnabled(pindex-&gt;<wbr>pprev=
, chainparams.GetConsensus()) ) //<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; and is not active.<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; {<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;=C2=A0 =C2=A0 bool fVersionBits =3D (pindex-&gt;nVersion &a=
mp; VERSIONBITS_TOP_MASK) =3D=3D<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; VERSIONBITS_TOP_BITS;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;=C2=A0 =C2=A0 bool fSegbit =3D (pindex-&gt;nVersion &amp;<b=
r>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; VersionBitsMask(chainparams.<wbr>GetConsensus(),<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; Consensus::DEPLOYMENT_SEGWIT)) !=3D 0;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;=C2=A0 =C2=A0 if (!(fVersionBits &amp;&amp; fSegbit)) {<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 return state.DoS(0, error(&quot=
;ConnectBlock(): relayed block must<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; signal for segwit, please upgrade&quot;), REJECT_INVALID, =
&quot;bad-no-segwit&quot;);<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;=C2=A0 =C2=A0 }<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; }<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &lt;/pre&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; <a href=3D"https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/0.14=
...jameshilliard:segsignal-v0.14.1" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">ht=
tps://github.com/bitcoin/<wbr>bitcoin/compare/0.14...<wbr>jameshilliard:seg=
signal-v0.14.<wbr>1</a><br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; =3D=3DBackwards Compatibility=3D=3D<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; This deployment is compatible with the existing &quot;segw=
it&quot; bit 1<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; deployment scheduled between midnight November 15th, 2016 =
and midnight<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; November 15th, 2017. Miners will need to upgrade their nod=
es to<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; support segsignal otherwise they may build on top of an in=
valid block.<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; While this bip is active users should either upgrade to se=
gsignal or<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; wait for additional confirmations when accepting payments.=
<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; =3D=3DRationale=3D=3D<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; Historically we have used IsSuperMajority() to activate so=
ft forks<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; such as BIP66 which has a mandatory signalling requirement=
 for miners<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; once activated, this ensures that miners are aware of new =
rules being<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; enforced. This technique can be leveraged to lower the sig=
nalling<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; threshold of a soft fork while it is in the process of bei=
ng deployed<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; in a backwards compatible way.<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; By orphaning non-signalling blocks during the BIP9 bit 1 &=
quot;segwit&quot;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; deployment, this BIP can cause the existing &quot;segwit&q=
uot; deployment to<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; activate without needing to release a new deployment.<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; =3D=3DReferences=3D=3D<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; *[<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/b=
itcoin-dev/2017-March/013714.html" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">htt=
ps://lists.<wbr>linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/<wbr>bitcoin-dev/2017-March/0=
13714.<wbr>html</a><br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; Mailing list discussion]<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; *[<a href=3D"https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/v0.6.=
0/src/main.cpp#L1281-L1283" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://gi=
thub.com/bitcoin/<wbr>bitcoin/blob/v0.6.0/src/main.<wbr>cpp#L1281-L1283</a>=
<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; P2SH flag day activation]<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; *[[bip-0009.mediawiki|BIP9 Version bits with timeout and d=
elay]]<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; *[[bip-0016.mediawiki|BIP16 Pay to Script Hash]]<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; *[[bip-0141.mediawiki|BIP141 Segregated Witness (Consensus=
 layer)]]<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; *[[bip-0143.mediawiki|BIP143 Transaction Signature Verific=
ation for<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; Version 0 Witness Program]]<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; *[[bip-0147.mediawiki|BIP147 Dealing with dummy stack elem=
ent malleability]]<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; *[[bip-0148.mediawiki|BIP148 Mandatory activation of segwi=
t deployment]]<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; *[[bip-0149.mediawiki|BIP149 Segregated Witness (second de=
ployment)]]<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; *[<a href=3D"https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/01/26/segwit-=
benefits/" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://bitcoincore.org/en/=
<wbr>2016/01/26/segwit-benefits/</a> Segwit benefits]<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; =3D=3DCopyright=3D=3D<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; This document is dual licensed as BSD 3-clause, and Creati=
ve Commons<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; CC0 1.0 Universal.<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; ______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; <a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">b=
itcoin-dev@lists.<wbr>linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; <a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listi=
nfo/bitcoin-dev" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfo=
undation.<wbr>org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-<wbr>dev</a><br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; ______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; <a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitco=
in-dev@lists.<wbr>linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; <a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/=
bitcoin-dev" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfounda=
tion.<wbr>org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-<wbr>dev</a><br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; ______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
&gt; bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
&gt; <a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@l=
ists.<wbr>linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
&gt; <a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-=
dev" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.<wb=
r>org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-<wbr>dev</a><br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.=
<wbr>linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" =
rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.<wbr>org=
/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-<wbr>dev</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>

--94eb2c0438e0002879055047d30c--