Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2016 08:29:37 -0400 (EDT)
From: Johnson Lau <jl2012@xbt.hk>
Reply-To: Johnson Lau <jl2012@xbt.hk>
To: Tom Harding <tomh@thinlink.com>, 
	Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Message-ID: <1966185375.94265.1472992177565@privateemail.com>
In-Reply-To: <198f7a5e-7912-dfb2-1b61-388a4f81b7b5@thinlink.com>
References: <1317364559.64256.1472791258452@privateemail.com>
	<198f7a5e-7912-dfb2-1b61-388a4f81b7b5@thinlink.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Importance: Medium
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] New BIP: Dealing with dummy stack element
 malleability
Precedence: list

Although it is technically possible to bundle 2 independent softforks in one release, it increases the burden of testing and maintenance. We need to test and prepare for 4 scenarios: both not activated, only NULLDUMMY activated, only SEGWIT activated, and both activated.

Also, as we learnt from BIP66, softfork activation could be risky. It is evident that today a non-negligible percentage of miners are hard-coding the block version number. This increases the risks of softfork transition as miners may not enforce what they are signaling (btw this is also happening on testnet) Making 2 independently softforks would double the risks, and I believe NULLDUMMY alone is not worth the risks.
 
> On September 2, 2016 at 1:10 PM Tom Harding via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> 
> 
> On 9/1/2016 9:40 PM, Johnson Lau via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> > This BIP will be deployed by "version bits" BIP9 using the same parameters for BIP141 and BIP143, with the name "segwit" and using bit 1.
> >
> 
> This fix has value outside of segwit.  Why bundle the two together? 
> Shouldn't miners have to opportunity to vote on them independently?
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev