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
|
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 7BA1BBDE
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 7 Jun 2017 21:44:55 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-oi0-f51.google.com (mail-oi0-f51.google.com
[209.85.218.51])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6835016C
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 7 Jun 2017 21:44:54 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-oi0-f51.google.com with SMTP id o65so11275094oif.1
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 07 Jun 2017 14:44:54 -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:content-transfer-encoding;
bh=KtGPL8Kfo3tF9c4pOwg5YYYtHS2LGHuNVb7vZ5Vcrnc=;
b=jVb9GO2els6w3Eq1XOVQpBZaAW2SWuvWzWckk8a5fh7/WSvZ2/LnHGldVnQRx5dvn1
JUQ0Pq9IhdXLDSvyssuJtaD+8KPglaBC7RMR2CgaS/Ppc4ng+z73ofnEeHL2g6WXOt/H
H4NFh+oPL/Cy4O8HfOXTq/9cqNLKMLqidfU8gLc9mxIPwGvjjElE90DINirbyIPJcXOF
HobDWpgQEzKrtL6qonHbNSDLCXGPJENCtDIkMuTMvnKgZLfYCgMeOpQi0+zOA+/TWTad
HpUTXS/QAkiMOXjFW1PA8kOF9TWnckixh1Ifg7wOJvtYT2uqCu+tSL6NZdxiUG+JltZo
6FZQ==
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=KtGPL8Kfo3tF9c4pOwg5YYYtHS2LGHuNVb7vZ5Vcrnc=;
b=E03bU+uVu51rFT79yuoCDLI24IDKKrPoYe96jif61hlFBpSSw9bGlBUbqyEIWdYJLd
h3iR0d5REm811IIQY/3zzGRfTgourdMkTDGxhSXqT5/eewA3jtcdE5GEdmkeUMI37S/0
mQMXqGG5Ui77LHY7t59KS65oIK1XTDa34YH+bxMxZFWmU7BU3CiH7bPPvCYr++yGMPsV
1LElecw3FVDE/bhftMfswDtFChESeovGYEGXTBetMfU1s8LKq3YMfgmpuncTE0bKl2vp
SAhQdLytr8Qcr7cMKGS2ek8clvI5vO5dEQMEBvLcN2abEOiLz+xhsLs8jXMtRgM8jHc5
jT0g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AODbwcDT3hK05I9XQh+mXD/kVukfv4dtXGMxBNmy1XqUCB7hRFUrXmV6
1bB47EaUjcuJ7ylhLkesN4cqg5PQW7XB
X-Received: by 10.202.87.87 with SMTP id l84mr753239oib.214.1496871893509;
Wed, 07 Jun 2017 14:44:53 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.182.224.230 with HTTP; Wed, 7 Jun 2017 14:44:52 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAD1TkXsrV3hmyEcpNXFdfWfTp3yLA4iKNCkp7FzjaATkXrmVnw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADvTj4qpH-t5Gx6qyn3yToyUE_GFaBE989=AWNHLKMpMNW3R+w@mail.gmail.com>
<AE5BA251-9DA6-4E34-A748-11C8CF91977C@taoeffect.com>
<CADvTj4q+oOS=DKfpiNQ6PAbksQfa1gKNfokr2Zc6PNGWqLyL4A@mail.gmail.com>
<0CDEF5A2-0BAF-46E4-8906-39D4724AF3F2@taoeffect.com>
<CADvTj4oJr38V+b=96pt7GiaMMSPujsz9wQ-5wmgM=rvWUC8Dkw@mail.gmail.com>
<CAJowKgJi-68G5Xy1_8n_BOX5e8myj08_SPiFu+cdWsRD4DNy4w@mail.gmail.com>
<CAD1TkXvaNq8wBsDdbYG4Qwn9YY=tXw8kPQQ2=B4nLKPdq3fsWg@mail.gmail.com>
<CADvTj4pEGoMUN_fn1bywzhV-WkRP7sQ6fofXKsYJsYjq329b9g@mail.gmail.com>
<CAD1TkXsrV3hmyEcpNXFdfWfTp3yLA4iKNCkp7FzjaATkXrmVnw@mail.gmail.com>
From: James Hilliard <james.hilliard1@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 16:44:52 -0500
Message-ID: <CADvTj4oh8ZpN5DcYqse9ruVqpQiCcV1Z_-VrdFTAw7Zr_OV+9Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jared Lee Richardson <jaredr26@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT,FREEMAIL_FROM,
RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE 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] User Activated Soft Fork Split Protection
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, 07 Jun 2017 21:44:55 -0000
Yes, this is the same as BIP148, there is no mandatory signalling
after segwit is locked in.
On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 4:43 PM, Jared Lee Richardson <jaredr26@gmail.com> w=
rote:
>> Keep in mind that this is only temporary until segwit has locked in,
> after that happens it becomes optional for miners again.
>
> I missed that, that does effectively address that concern. It appears
> that BIP148 implements the same rule as would be required to prevent a
> later chainsplit as well, no?
>
> This comment did bring to mind another concern about BIP148/91 though,
> which I'll raise in the pull request discussion. Feel free to respond
> to it there.
>
> Jared
>
> On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 2:21 PM, James Hilliard
> <james.hilliard1@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Keep in mind that this is only temporary until segwit has locked in,
>> after that happens it becomes optional for miners again.
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 4:09 PM, Jared Lee Richardson <jaredr26@gmail.com=
> wrote:
>>>> This is, by far, the safest way for miners to quickly defend against a=
chain split, much better than a -bip148 option. This allows miners to de=
fend themselves, with very little risk, since the defense is only activated=
if the majority of miners do so. I would move for a very rapid deployment.=
Only miners would need to upgrade. Regular users would not have to con=
cern themselves with this release.
>>>
>>> FYI, even if very successful, this deployment and change may have a
>>> severe negative impact on a small group of miners. Any miners/pools
>>> who are not actively following the forums, news, or these discussions
>>> may be difficult to reach and communicate with in time, particularly
>>> with language barriers. Of those, any who are also either not
>>> signaling segwit currently or are running an older software version
>>> will have their blocks continuously and constantly orphaned, but may
>>> not have any alarms or notifications set up for such an unexpected
>>> failure. That may or may not be a worthy consideration, but it is
>>> definitely brusque and a harsh price to pay. Considering the
>>> opposition mentioned against transaction limits for the rare cases
>>> where a very large transaction has already been signed, it seems that
>>> this would be worthy of consideration. For the few miners in that
>>> situation, it does turn segwit from an optional softfork into a
>>> punishing hardfork.
>>>
>>> I don't think that's a sufficient reason alone to kill the idea, but
>>> it should be a concern.
>>>
>>> Jared
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 7:10 AM, Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev
>>> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>>> This is, by far, the safest way for miners to quickly defend against a=
chain
>>>> split, much better than a -bip148 option. This allows miners to defe=
nd
>>>> themselves, with very little risk, since the defense is only activated=
if
>>>> the majority of miners do so. I would move for a very rapid deployment=
.
>>>> Only miners would need to upgrade. Regular users would not have to c=
oncern
>>>> themselves with this release.
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 6:13 AM, James Hilliard via bitcoin-dev
>>>> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I think even 55% would probably work out fine simply due to incentive
>>>>> structures, once signalling is over 51% it's then clear to miners tha=
t
>>>>> non-signalling blocks will be orphaned and the rest will rapidly
>>>>> update to splitprotection/BIP148. The purpose of this BIP is to reduc=
e
>>>>> chain split risk for BIP148 since it's looking like BIP148 is going t=
o
>>>>> be run by a non-insignificant percentage of the economy at a minimum.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 12:20 AM, Tao Effect <contact@taoeffect.com> w=
rote:
>>>>> > See thread on replay attacks for why activating regardless of thres=
hold
>>>>> > is a
>>>>> > bad idea [1].
>>>>> >
>>>>> > BIP91 OTOH seems perfectly reasonable. 80% instead of 95% makes it =
more
>>>>> > difficult for miners to hold together in opposition to Core. It giv=
es
>>>>> > Core
>>>>> > more leverage in negotiations.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > If they don't activate with 80%, Core can release another BIP to re=
duce
>>>>> > it
>>>>> > to 75%.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Each threshold reduction makes it both more likely to succeed, but =
also
>>>>> > increases the likelihood of harm to the ecosystem.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Cheers,
>>>>> > Greg
>>>>> >
>>>>> > [1]
>>>>> >
>>>>> > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-June/0=
14497.html
>>>>> >
>>>>> > --
>>>>> > Please do not email me anything that you are not comfortable also
>>>>> > sharing
>>>>> > with the NSA.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > On Jun 6, 2017, at 6:54 PM, James Hilliard <james.hilliard1@gmail.c=
om>
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>> >
>>>>> > This is a BIP8 style soft fork so mandatory signalling will be acti=
ve
>>>>> > after Aug 1st regardless.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 8:51 PM, Tao Effect <contact@taoeffect.com>
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>> >
>>>>> > What is the probability that a 65% threshold is too low and can all=
ow a
>>>>> > "surprise miner attack", whereby miners are kept offline before the
>>>>> > deadline, and brought online immediately after, creating potential
>>>>> > havoc?
>>>>> >
>>>>> > (Nit: "simple majority" usually refers to >50%, I think, might caus=
e
>>>>> > confusion.)
>>>>> >
>>>>> > -Greg Slepak
>>>>> >
>>>>> > --
>>>>> > Please do not email me anything that you are not comfortable also
>>>>> > sharing
>>>>> > with the NSA.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > On Jun 6, 2017, at 5:56 PM, James Hilliard via bitcoin-dev
>>>>> > <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Due to the proposed calendar(https://segwit2x.github.io/) for the
>>>>> > SegWit2x agreement being too slow to activate SegWit mandatory
>>>>> > signalling ahead of BIP148 using BIP91 I would like to propose anot=
her
>>>>> > option that miners can use to prevent a chain split ahead of the Au=
g
>>>>> > 1st BIP148 activation date.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > The splitprotection soft fork is essentially BIP91 but using BIP8
>>>>> > instead of BIP9 with a lower activation threshold and immediate
>>>>> > mandatory signalling lock-in. This allows for a majority of miners =
to
>>>>> > activate mandatory SegWit signalling and prevent a potential chain
>>>>> > split ahead of BIP148 activation.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > This BIP allows for miners to respond to market forces quickly ahea=
d
>>>>> > of BIP148 activation by signalling for splitprotection. Any miners
>>>>> > already running BIP148 should be encouraged to use splitprotection.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > <pre>
>>>>> > BIP: splitprotection
>>>>> > Layer: Consensus (soft fork)
>>>>> > Title: User Activated Soft Fork Split Protection
>>>>> > Author: James Hilliard <james.hilliard1@gmail.com>
>>>>> > Comments-Summary: No comments yet.
>>>>> > Comments-URI:
>>>>> > 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 coordination mechanism for a simple major=
ity
>>>>> > of miners to prevent a chain split ahead of BIP148 activation.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > =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
>>>>> >
>>>>> > The biggest risk of BIP148 is an extended chain split, this BIP
>>>>> > provides a way for a simple majority of miners to eliminate that ri=
sk.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > This BIP provides a way for a simple majority of miners to coordina=
te
>>>>> > activation of the existing segwit deployment with less than 95%
>>>>> > hashpower before BIP148 activation. Due to time constraints unless
>>>>> > immediately deployed BIP91 will likely not be able to enforce
>>>>> > mandatory signalling of segwit before the Aug 1st activation of
>>>>> > BIP148. This BIP provides a method for rapid miner activation of
>>>>> > SegWit mandatory signalling ahead of the BIP148 activation date. Si=
nce
>>>>> > the primary goal of this BIP is to reduce the chance of an extended
>>>>> > chain split as much as possible we activate using a simple miner
>>>>> > majority of 65% over a 504 block interval rather than a higher
>>>>> > percentage. This BIP also allows miners to signal their intention t=
o
>>>>> > run BIP148 in order to prevent a chain split.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > =3D=3DSpecification=3D=3D
>>>>> >
>>>>> > While this BIP is active, all blocks must set the nVersion header t=
op
>>>>> > 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 "version bits" with a 65%(this can be
>>>>> > adjusted if desired) activation threshold BIP9 with the name
>>>>> > "splitprotecion" and using bit 2.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > This BIP starts immediately and is a BIP8 style soft fork since
>>>>> > mandatory signalling will start on midnight August 1st 2017 (epoch
>>>>> > time 1501545600) regardless of whether or not this BIP has reached =
its
>>>>> > own signalling threshold. This BIP will cease to be active when seg=
wit
>>>>> > 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);
>>>>> > }
>>>>> >
>>>>> > // SPLITPROTECTION mandatory segwit signalling.
>>>>> > if ( VersionBitsState(pindex->pprev, chainparams.GetConsensus(),
>>>>> > Consensus::DEPLOYMENT_SPLITPROTECTION, versionbitscache) =3D=3D
>>>>> > THRESHOLD_LOCKED_IN &&
>>>>> > !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=
");
>>>>> > }
>>>>> > }
>>>>> >
>>>>> > // BIP148 mandatory segwit signalling.
>>>>> > int64_t nMedianTimePast =3D pindex->GetMedianTimePast();
>>>>> > if ( (nMedianTimePast >=3D 1501545600) && // Tue 01 Aug 2017 00:00=
:00 UTC
>>>>> > (nMedianTimePast <=3D 1510704000) && // Wed 15 Nov 2017 00:00:0=
0 UTC
>>>>> > (!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:spl=
itprotection-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 midni=
ght
>>>>> > November 15th, 2017. This deployment is also compatible with the
>>>>> > existing BIP148 deployment. This BIP is compatible with BIP91 only =
if
>>>>> > BIP91 activates before it and before BIP148. Miners will need to
>>>>> > upgrade their nodes to support splitprotection otherwise they may
>>>>> > build on top of an invalid block. While this bip is active users
>>>>> > should either upgrade to splitprotection 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 mine=
rs
>>>>> > once activated, this ensures that miners are aware of new rules bei=
ng
>>>>> > enforced. This technique can be leveraged to lower the signalling
>>>>> > threshold of a soft fork while it is in the process of being deploy=
ed
>>>>> > in a backwards compatible way. We also use a BIP8 style timeout to
>>>>> > ensure that this BIP is compatible with BIP148 and that BIP148
>>>>> > compatible mandatory signalling activates regardless of miner
>>>>> > signalling levels.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > 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. As we approac=
h
>>>>> > BIP148 activation it may be desirable for a majority of miners to h=
ave
>>>>> > a method that will ensure that there is no chain split.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > =3D=3DReferences=3D=3D
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> > *[https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-Marc=
h/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-0091.mediawiki|BIP91 Reduced threshold Segwit MASF]]
>>>>> > *[[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 deploym=
ent]]
>>>>> > *[[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 Common=
s
>>>>> > 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
>>>>
|