From pete at petertodd.org Sat Jul 18 16:50:24 2015 From: pete at petertodd.org (Peter Todd) Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2015 01:50:24 +0900 Subject: [Lightning-dev] Lightning modifications draft paper In-Reply-To: References: <87mvyvci2k.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> Message-ID: <20150718165024.GG26863@muck> On Sat, Jul 18, 2015 at 09:25:54AM -0700, Mark Friedenbach wrote: > On Sat, Jul 18, 2015 at 9:19 AM, Nick ODell wrote: > > > There doesn't seem to be any deployment timeline. > > > > Welcome to bitcoin development. > > At the moment we have only the capability to push out one soft fork vote at > a time. The uncontroversial aspects of BIP62 were rushed out as BIP66 in > response to an undisclosed vulnerability, as mentioned. I believe there is > consensus now that BIP65: CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY has higher deployment > priority, so it will be next. There is no deployment timeline for BIP62 > because it is a low priority in this soft-fork logjam. A slight clarification: we do have the capability to push out more than one soft-fork *upgrade signaling* at a time, but this is very far from a vote because if miners decide not to upgrade there is no easy way to recover. The nVersion bits mechanism I co-authored with Pieter Wuille and Gregory Maxwell is closer to a vote because a soft-fork failing to go through has a clear and non-coercive outcome. For instance, if my own BIP65 had been accepted into v0.11.0 miners who had upgraded to v0.10.x/0.9.5 would have been signaling that they supported BIP66, while sumultaneously miners running v0.11.0 would be signalling that they supported both BIP66 and BIP65. As adoption increased BIP66 would trigger first, followed by BIP65. (theoretically both could trigger on the same block too) The problem is if miners had decided they didn't like BIP66 but wanted to implement BIP65 there would be no mechanism to do that - it depends on the details, but from the point of view of at least some nodes you likely would have hard-forked Bitcoin in the process of stopping the failed soft-fork. -- 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org 00000000000000000b675c4d825a10c278b8d63ee4df90a19393f3b6498fd073 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 650 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: