MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <9e2e7009-7bec-845a-bc9f-3ee03d4b4e7f@mattcorallo.com>
References: <CAAUaCyiHUOQ-rhN5XiGyMc6ocfsNBuH_tzK_QWu7sg1=Qd-o=Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<9e2e7009-7bec-845a-bc9f-3ee03d4b4e7f@mattcorallo.com>
From: Jacob Eliosoff <jacob.eliosoff@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 26 May 2017 16:10:38 -0400
Message-ID: <CAAUaCyj1Yo+CpmwR40U711wknwerYeE_WkLERHuKf3uX-fcQjA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Matt Corallo <lf-lists@mattcorallo.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f403045ea59c626895055072ee5c"
Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Barry Silbert segwit agreement
Precedence: list

--f403045ea59c626895055072ee5c
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

Just to clarify one thing, what I described differs from BIP91 in that
there's no orphaning.  Just when Segwit2MB support reaches 80%, those 80%
join everyone else in signaling for BIP141.  BIP91 orphaning is an optional
addition but my guess is it wouldn't be needed.


On May 26, 2017 4:02 PM, "Matt Corallo" <lf-lists@mattcorallo.com> wrote:

> Your proposal seems to be simply BIP 91 tied to the
> as-yet-entirely-undefined hard fork Barry et al proposed.
>
> Using James' BIP 91 instead of the Barry-bit-4/5/whatever proposal, as
> you propose, would make the deployment on the incredibly short timeline
> Barry et al proposed slightly more realistic, though I would expect to
> see hard fork code readily available and well-tested at this point in
> order to meet that timeline.
>
> Ultimately, due to their aggressive timeline, the Barry et al proposal
> is incredibly unlikely to meet the requirements of a
> multi-billion-dollar system, and continued research into meeting the
> spirit, not the text, of their agreement seems warranted.
>
> Matt
>
> On 05/26/17 17:47, Jacob Eliosoff via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> > Forgive me if this is a dumb question.  Suppose that rather than
> > directly activating segwit, the Silbert/NYC Segwit2MB proposal's lock-in
> > just triggered BIP141 signaling (plus later HF).  Would that avoid
> > incompatibility with existing BIP141 nodes, and get segwit activated
> > sooner?  Eg:
> >
> > - Bit 4 (or bit 5 or whatever, now that BIP91 uses 4) signals support
> > for "segwit now, HF (TBD) at scheduled date (Nov 23?)"
> > - If bit 4 support reaches 80%, it locks in two things: the scheduled HF
> > (conditional on segwit), and *immediately* turning on bit 1 (BIP141
> support)
> >
> > I realize this would still leave problems like the aggressive HF
> > schedule, possible chain split at the HF date between Segwit2MB nodes
> > and any remaining BIP141 nodes, etc.  My focus here is how
> > incompatibility with existing nodes could be minimized.
> >
> > (BIP91 could also be used if BIP141 support still fell short of 95%.
> > But if Segwit2MB support reaches 80%, it seems likely that an additional
> > 15% will support BIP141-without-HF.)
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > bitcoin-dev mailing list
> > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
> >
>

--f403045ea59c626895055072ee5c
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"auto">Just to clarify one thing, what I described differs from =
BIP91 in that there&#39;s no orphaning.=C2=A0 Just when Segwit2MB support r=
eaches 80%, those 80% join everyone else in signaling for BIP141.=C2=A0 BIP=
91 orphaning is an optional addition but my guess is it wouldn&#39;t be nee=
ded.<div dir=3D"auto"><br></div></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div c=
lass=3D"gmail_quote">On May 26, 2017 4:02 PM, &quot;Matt Corallo&quot; &lt;=
<a href=3D"mailto:lf-lists@mattcorallo.com">lf-lists@mattcorallo.com</a>&gt=
; wrote:<br type=3D"attribution"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D=
"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Your propos=
al seems to be simply BIP 91 tied to the<br>
as-yet-entirely-undefined hard fork Barry et al proposed.<br>
<br>
Using James&#39; BIP 91 instead of the Barry-bit-4/5/whatever proposal, as<=
br>
you propose, would make the deployment on the incredibly short timeline<br>
Barry et al proposed slightly more realistic, though I would expect to<br>
see hard fork code readily available and well-tested at this point in<br>
order to meet that timeline.<br>
<br>
Ultimately, due to their aggressive timeline, the Barry et al proposal<br>
is incredibly unlikely to meet the requirements of a<br>
multi-billion-dollar system, and continued research into meeting the<br>
spirit, not the text, of their agreement seems warranted.<br>
<br>
Matt<br>
<br>
On 05/26/17 17:47, Jacob Eliosoff via bitcoin-dev wrote:<br>
&gt; Forgive me if this is a dumb question.=C2=A0 Suppose that rather than<=
br>
&gt; directly activating segwit, the Silbert/NYC Segwit2MB proposal&#39;s l=
ock-in<br>
&gt; just triggered BIP141 signaling (plus later HF).=C2=A0 Would that avoi=
d<br>
&gt; incompatibility with existing BIP141 nodes, and get segwit activated<b=
r>
&gt; sooner?=C2=A0 Eg:<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; - Bit 4 (or bit 5 or whatever, now that BIP91 uses 4) signals support<=
br>
&gt; for &quot;segwit now, HF (TBD) at scheduled date (Nov 23?)&quot;<br>
&gt; - If bit 4 support reaches 80%, it locks in two things: the scheduled =
HF<br>
&gt; (conditional on segwit), and *immediately* turning on bit 1 (BIP141 su=
pport)<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; I realize this would still leave problems like the aggressive HF<br>
&gt; schedule, possible chain split at the HF date between Segwit2MB nodes<=
br>
&gt; and any remaining BIP141 nodes, etc.=C2=A0 My focus here is how<br>
&gt; incompatibility with existing nodes could be minimized.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; (BIP91 could also be used if BIP141 support still fell short of 95%.<b=
r>
&gt; But if Segwit2MB support reaches 80%, it seems likely that an addition=
al<br>
&gt; 15% will support BIP141-without-HF.)<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; ______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
&gt; bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
&gt; <a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@l=
ists.<wbr>linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
&gt; <a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-=
dev" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.<wb=
r>org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-<wbr>dev</a><br>
&gt;<br>
</blockquote></div></div>

--f403045ea59c626895055072ee5c--