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
|
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 71FA8AB9
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 2 May 2017 16:54:37 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-qk0-f178.google.com (mail-qk0-f178.google.com
[209.85.220.178])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C114B1F6
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 2 May 2017 16:54:36 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-qk0-f178.google.com with SMTP id u68so38229797qkd.0
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 02 May 2017 09:54:36 -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=wjaZ4YJXzdcQMUh65r9Okh1hogt801YhvOt4NOGkaBA=;
b=tNU82NjtN4sPfExE3VNJuTH1/lNAt+QZcsPNprNDLg4LBvsiaA/F1JcuHtse6vP9KQ
v5Ojj0JtDfsZuRMQMIVEr9bsAnqXx199QG7F4cSAob6VOXsjEBI3W7zr9e9dUEplmtlZ
qUoWVPATGSTC+39RZETCQbidYY5KcXBoyVuw7JfFJosCBPpYXC1MZRZtNOxoJn42qB6i
XRbbT+EXGqVdtExkbHq0Sxr5i6IwL1q61aqcx72N7LF28n3Mlwgl7yWqDwgY4MxHYxjO
Ayod3uYammL/MTjSWtWJpp4Af39Z1EDWbTbtFDLdNrItj293yBujMyQbSnnt0thAvpgt
wQlA==
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=wjaZ4YJXzdcQMUh65r9Okh1hogt801YhvOt4NOGkaBA=;
b=mI8ya3gdA0tifq0XDDh5dw5bI3F9jF9dUzrRHGdoLsB5BDFLL38kcGno1Jbp7RkcPv
iY07sntzydq5OQtHOyrJU9AaxP8uc6vyOtjQ4OC8x8PVDSRXkVi0AXQg3AUY7wG9r4Ct
S1ZEpPpwDoIotbCyNTf3kbsYmocxen3qasZBmE9ufj3wh6SnRUKSfFphA20YSkBWNPNZ
e9/PvjxXS8LgqJy4IqozoWB9bmGFXzRyEKf4IG6RJr7TkR8KoCovYF6pRG1so0a6gIfa
YnOYMiz0b4Oq5L6R6bhhXsnnHk/L/k0edSgovVkIboGCWzGRYcL9GtCWthmdWjeqAR+C
ui4w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AN3rC/4VG2JDriMhQMrSxbFawvKitLf5zVbv4Jwa9Sh79yseff1V+5EC
jzCMc2FaPIIIN27FBjffXcx4CGWgUA==
X-Received: by 10.55.150.133 with SMTP id y127mr26471132qkd.230.1493744076050;
Tue, 02 May 2017 09:54:36 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: earonesty@gmail.com
Received: by 10.200.39.43 with HTTP; Tue, 2 May 2017 09:54:35 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <201704251846.10793.luke@dashjr.org>
References: <CAAS2fgRdSOu8N6L3+fBpnye+rM+W6+F=cePy=9oL4tJuCj=Jsw@mail.gmail.com>
<X8k9ENqIddjVtibis1I8dLjHNxIUao0rLwZzpyoCNuWlc6Umgu7huGsbBWGhVY6Jd2XEUOVO8MxkgYKTyaNJ23nJbrE8dz7b8JKTBoE5Ljo=@protonmail.ch>
<CAAS2fgQzd9J3iNMRfW+x1QnqMFAHx89+GTXEt0SWm6+USZniDA@mail.gmail.com>
<201704251846.10793.luke@dashjr.org>
From: Erik Aronesty <erik@q32.com>
Date: Tue, 2 May 2017 12:54:35 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: uO8f479BMPCwrEVjhPdpxmCibYQ
Message-ID: <CAJowKg+zdXgeBAmY4WhW-P3WWfqze7G+B3AAwxxVtKeTsoB81g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c07cd4609da66054e8d65c7
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: Tue, 02 May 2017 17:18:07 +0000
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] I do not support the BIP 148 UASF
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, 02 May 2017 16:54:37 -0000
--94eb2c07cd4609da66054e8d65c7
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
If the flag day for a wtxid commitment is timed before the current segwit
period end, I suspect segwit would activate within the current period.
On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 2:46 PM, Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On Tuesday 25 April 2017 6:28:14 PM Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> > > https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/master...
> shaolinfry:uasegwit-f
> > > lagday
> > >
> > > I believe this approach would satisfy the more measured approach
> expected
> > > for Bitcoin and does not have the issues you brought up about BIP148.
> >
> > I have not reviewed it carefully yet, but I agree that it addresses my
> > main concern! I think this is a much better approach. Thanks.
>
> FWIW, I disagree in this case. I think given the circumstances, if we are
> going to do a UASF for segwit at all, we need a clearly decisive outcome,
> which is given by BIP 148. Using the approach in BIP 8 makes sense in many
> cases, but in this case, it is liable to simply create a prolonged
> uncertainty
> where nobody knows the outcome when segwit's rules are challenged by a
> malicious miner.
>
> If BIP 148 fails to achieve widespread support, we could do a BIP 8-based
> UASF
> with Segwit v2 (along with some other changes I suggested in the other
> thread), but I think the tradeoffs right now favour BIP 148 as the best
> UASF
> deployment.
>
> Luke
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
--94eb2c07cd4609da66054e8d65c7
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><div><div><div>If the flag day for a wtxid commitment is t=
imed before the current segwit period end, I suspect segwit would activate =
within the current period.<br></div></div></div></div><div class=3D"gmail_e=
xtra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 2:46 PM, Luke =
Dashjr via bitcoin-dev <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@=
lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundat=
ion.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D=
"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">On Tuesday =
25 April 2017 6:28:14 PM Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev wrote:<br>
> > <a href=3D"https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/master...sh=
aolinfry:uasegwit-f" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://github.co=
m/bitcoin/<wbr>bitcoin/compare/master...<wbr>shaolinfry:uasegwit-f</a><br>
<span class=3D"">> > lagday<br>
> ><br>
> > I believe this approach would satisfy the more measured approach =
expected<br>
> > for Bitcoin and does not have the issues you brought up about BIP=
148.<br>
><br>
> I have not reviewed it carefully yet, but I agree that it addresses my=
<br>
> main concern!=C2=A0 I think this is a much better approach. Thanks.<br=
>
<br>
</span>FWIW, I disagree in this case. I think given the circumstances, if w=
e are<br>
going to do a UASF for segwit at all, we need a clearly decisive outcome,<b=
r>
which is given by BIP 148. Using the approach in BIP 8 makes sense in many<=
br>
cases, but in this case, it is liable to simply create a prolonged uncertai=
nty<br>
where nobody knows the outcome when segwit's rules are challenged by a<=
br>
malicious miner.<br>
<br>
If BIP 148 fails to achieve widespread support, we could do a BIP 8-based U=
ASF<br>
with Segwit v2 (along with some other changes I suggested in the other<br>
thread), but I think the tradeoffs right now favour BIP 148 as the best UAS=
F<br>
deployment.<br>
<br>
Luke<br>
<div class=3D"HOEnZb"><div class=3D"h5">______________________________<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>
--94eb2c07cd4609da66054e8d65c7--
|
