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
|
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 C70E089C
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 11 Jun 2017 14:29:10 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-vk0-f54.google.com (mail-vk0-f54.google.com
[209.85.213.54])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3210315F
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 11 Jun 2017 14:29:10 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-vk0-f54.google.com with SMTP id g66so40729306vki.1
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 11 Jun 2017 07:29:10 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=jtimon-cc.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623;
h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to
:cc:content-transfer-encoding;
bh=SjmOg+fX1FzVpDY+bCmAH+l55fAcyI6H11p592pahfo=;
b=YeD6FJgSTJ8r2kpDoxHy8S9FsROPsti46s2sPwRmu2oHdkwtOcBWkPipTHQwfT8w7F
s/r1U2y5ubJ6LiOQIZdvka7bkA+X7GFn9EGAC7CPX+xEiEy561nb5yc7dV2lZkYRGUMT
dvY+IerflOVsy39LALIR5WWgItIxeJNyiHKMaNKBDGwso4LVV1vrEO/26jCMdtpXOQ9u
2GnFMpktKMSK5WU1iWUxBxqIvw7+LsG09SmvAnBxYB9zL0EVWun0WBK1VFPdHgvJnWcy
RpuTaxZGV1j379Y0n30bDA4TFFxzVL7qmCqGKkqSKH3xgm5JirPLZ2nFGTpO5xsJzroW
/qxQ==
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:content-transfer-encoding;
bh=SjmOg+fX1FzVpDY+bCmAH+l55fAcyI6H11p592pahfo=;
b=gxKjp+FSQbZYLdmb4G9Z0gVbGRsXcSU3/zhLD//saSDOwTjwmUiYb+1wcxq54YqQZI
UPh151+NKJGIoJZ9l1RGPb+CLsD3kh9AFdlGwgIGoe3lAU7y43rviT7JFd2br2ahh55X
j0nAP+iq9JDQsR8kwN4W1giVDNUeIvv3b7Pueg5wcEU6zxyZhCL6S/GkU8gpzml2RKEg
ZYM4LjZjTFowuzxtQbZ+noDvNTWmpghETIdP2xkpH6UV3cLAdm4y4bfGqX8V3AMcnDss
KXsuKQZjf1OGzbzy+aCJoxEFhs4QGnonHWnbiDXjmjoGzFtjtWuveWvEjcewl6BovtP4
Dw4A==
X-Gm-Message-State: AODbwcDGrkddZQQB5PoUYjN1GmnB0zTTrYpK8qSoIJEYAcvs5YsSRxKq
rx9/83Xv0FIQXShkwp5rXRG/l6MUHklxdqw=
X-Received: by 10.31.36.19 with SMTP id k19mr25571711vkk.78.1497191349259;
Sun, 11 Jun 2017 07:29:09 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.31.52.213 with HTTP; Sun, 11 Jun 2017 07:29:08 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAODYVYc7x-C5nLxtTHYh9iJuCgv0B7XADCS7DeSW8O8VMuGvbQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAODYVYc7x-C5nLxtTHYh9iJuCgv0B7XADCS7DeSW8O8VMuGvbQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2017 16:29:08 +0200
Message-ID: <CABm2gDrqrfGxB8zJNDu8B4yz8YVoD-0hs753ZexGC6=Dhybe3w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Martijn Meijering <martijn.meijering@mevs.nl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP149 timeout-- why so far in the future?
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: Sun, 11 Jun 2017 14:29:10 -0000
On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 3:44 PM, Martijn Meijering via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Jorge Tim=C3=B3n wrote:
> Why not just make sure BIP 149 will never activate unless BIP 141 has
> expired unsuccessfully?
Right, that would be part of it, as well as not removing the BIP141
deployment with bip9.
See https://github.com/jtimon/bitcoin/commit/62efd741740f5c75c43d78358d6318=
941e6d3c04
> If BIP 141 should unexpectly activate, then
> BIP 149 nodes would notice and act as pre-SegWit nodes indefinitely,
> but remain in consensus with BIP 141 nodes.
>
> It might be slightly less convenient for BIP 149 users to upgrade
> again, but then at least we could start deploying BIP 149 sooner.
No, if segwit activates pre nov15, bip149 nodse can detect and
interpret that just fine.
The problem if it activates post nov15, then you need a separate
service bit in the p2p network, for pre-BIP149 will think sw hasn't
activated while post-BIP149 would know it has activated.
If you release it only after nov15, you don't need to test
compatibility between the two for neither of this two cases.
Or do you? Actually you only save testing the easier case of pre-nov15
activation.
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
|
