MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAJR7vkruAKxyB4GpU7=Tb7U8+zHzrb4PbL5zssC70BEtFVY=WA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJR7vkpRhNsQsem-nFkeubX04xx1y7aHwCENfg0d1266oOsXMw@mail.gmail.com>
	<2151650.Y6dYBXdtR5@strawberry>
	<04bbsNGwBdLiye5VgB_cNxkCNiOSNJBWFpI2QbN_o_ZQWRLEU7FjgkfOi5DZXrrBeQIuacMn_JHGzzX4dCmoyjmpT6PI9GZDu3JDgpgT4Pw=@protonmail.com>
	<CAJR7vkruAKxyB4GpU7=Tb7U8+zHzrb4PbL5zssC70BEtFVY=WA@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2017 23:25:45 +0200
Message-ID: <CABm2gDrXTVpJ9_HAkQh87qeBOu6FhfxeM7S-qy0APYrLwWWKnA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jimmy Song <jaejoon@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Cc: "bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org"
	<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] A Small Modification to Segwit
Precedence: list

On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 4:40 PM, Jimmy Song via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> I've changed the proposal so only 8 bits are given to grinding so something
> like 20 bits are available for signaling.
>
> I have to say I'm at a loss here as to what's next? Should I make a new BIP
> or try to convince the authors of BIP141 to modify their BIP? Could someone
> inform me on the next part of the process?

See bip2, specifically
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0002.mediawiki#bip-workflow

"Following a discussion, the proposal should be submitted to the BIPs
git repository as a pull request. This draft must be written in BIP
style as described below, and named with an alias such as
"bip-johndoe-infinitebitcoins" until the editor has assigned it a BIP
number (authors MUST NOT self-assign BIP numbers)."

But I think it's kind of late to modify bip141, given that there's
code out there with the current specification.
I guess you can propose extensions or alternatives to replace it. I'm
really not sure what's the next step, but I don't think you have
provided enough motivation as to why we would want to maintain
asicboost. You said it makes the network more secure, but that's not
the case, as explained, not even if all honest miners use it.

> On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 8:25 AM, Sancho Panza via bitcoin-dev
> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>
>> Tom Zander wrote:
>>
>> > The version field is still needed to actually allow future block version
>> > upgrades. We would cut off our road forward if that were to be blocked.
>>
>> I tend to agree, if all 32 bits were given up to grinding.
>>
>> But it's worth pointing out that BIP9 is purely informational, and the top
>> 3 bits are still reserved for other purposes. One of them could perhaps be
>> used to signal for an extended version field somewhere else, leaving the
>> bottom 29 as entropy?
>>
>> Not a direction I prefer, but just a technical possibility perhaps.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>