MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <201505270346.17014.luke@dashjr.org>
References: <CAPg+sBg5TqQ=zjyZ7dp-d1oBGp31Krnix3zyt9suP4-AGbxW=Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<201505270346.17014.luke@dashjr.org>
Date: Wed, 27 May 2015 05:51:00 +0200
Message-ID: <CABm2gDoriDaQ1AjRDFxCT9zCNPQakJd9xRxfWkOJBf4v22hndQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
To: Luke-Jr <luke@dashjr.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c38216bedbcf0517082697
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Version bits proposal
Precedence: list

--001a11c38216bedbcf0517082697
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

It would also help to see the actual code changes required, which I'm sure
will be much shorter than the explanation itself.
On May 27, 2015 5:47 AM, "Luke Dashjr" <luke@dashjr.org> wrote:

> On Wednesday, May 27, 2015 1:48:05 AM Pieter Wuille wrote:
> > Feel free to comment. As the gist does not support notifying participants
> > of new comments, I would suggest using the mailing list instead.
>
> I suggest adding a section describing how this interacts with and changes
> GBT.
>
> Currently, the client tells the server what the highest block version it
> supports is, and the server indicates a block version to use in its
> template,
> as well as optional instructions for the client to forcefully use this
> version
> despite its own maximum version number. Making the version a bitfield
> contradicts the increment-only assumption of this design, and since GBT
> clients are not aware of overall network consensus state, reused bits can
> easily become confused. I suggest, therefore, that GBT clients should
> indicate
> (instead of a maximum supported version number) a list of softforks by
> identifier keyword, and the GBT server respond with a template indicating:
> - An object of softfork keywords to bit values, that the server will
> accept.
> - The version number, as presently conveyed, indicating the preferred
> softfork
> flags.
>
> Does this sound reasonable, and/or am I missing anything else?
>
> Luke
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>

--001a11c38216bedbcf0517082697
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<p dir=3D"ltr">It would also help to see the actual code changes required, =
which I&#39;m sure will be much shorter than the explanation itself.</p>
<div class=3D"gmail_quote">On May 27, 2015 5:47 AM, &quot;Luke Dashjr&quot;=
 &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:luke@dashjr.org">luke@dashjr.org</a>&gt; wrote:<br t=
ype=3D"attribution"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0=
 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">On Wednesday, May 27, 20=
15 1:48:05 AM Pieter Wuille wrote:<br>
&gt; Feel free to comment. As the gist does not support notifying participa=
nts<br>
&gt; of new comments, I would suggest using the mailing list instead.<br>
<br>
I suggest adding a section describing how this interacts with and changes G=
BT.<br>
<br>
Currently, the client tells the server what the highest block version it<br=
>
supports is, and the server indicates a block version to use in its templat=
e,<br>
as well as optional instructions for the client to forcefully use this vers=
ion<br>
despite its own maximum version number. Making the version a bitfield<br>
contradicts the increment-only assumption of this design, and since GBT<br>
clients are not aware of overall network consensus state, reused bits can<b=
r>
easily become confused. I suggest, therefore, that GBT clients should indic=
ate<br>
(instead of a maximum supported version number) a list of softforks by<br>
identifier keyword, and the GBT server respond with a template indicating:<=
br>
- An object of softfork keywords to bit values, that the server will accept=
.<br>
- The version number, as presently conveyed, indicating the preferred softf=
ork<br>
flags.<br>
<br>
Does this sound reasonable, and/or am I missing anything else?<br>
<br>
Luke<br>
<br>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
---<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Bitcoin-development mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net">Bitcoin-develo=
pment@lists.sourceforge.net</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development=
" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-de=
velopment</a><br>
</blockquote></div>

--001a11c38216bedbcf0517082697--