Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 16:19:13 -0700
From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
To: Btc Drak <btcdrak@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20150827231913.GC4125@muck>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="qcHopEYAB45HaUaB"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CADJgMztcy33cW4=SOfsmANMFCU3Q7pcLqatG9JeJCgEXnpkD+g@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADJgMzvfeka5WXyjz8oeTtKUSrfxWBGR7BMujJ-4LL2jrcUuZw@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP: Using Median time-past as endpoint for
 locktime calculations
Precedence: list


--qcHopEYAB45HaUaB
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 11:08:32PM +0100, Btc Drak wrote:
> This BIP was assigned number 113.
>=20
> I have updated the text accordingly and added credits to Gregory Maxwell.
>=20
> Please see the changes in the pull request:
> https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/182

On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 11:11:10PM +0100, Btc Drak via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> I have changed BIPS 112 and 113 to reflect this amended deployment
> strategy. I'm beginning to think the issues created by Bitcoin XT are
> so serious it probably deserves converting OPs text into an
> informational BIP.

I thought we had decided that the masking thing doesn't work as
intended?

To recap, XT nodes are producing blocks with nVersion=3D0b001...111

You're suggesting that we apply a mask of ~0b001...111 then trigger the
soft-fork on nVersion >=3D 0b0...100 =3D=3D 4, with miners producing blocks=
 with
nVersion=3D0b0...1000

That will work, but it still uses up a version bit. The reason why is
blocks with nVersion=3D0b001...000 - the intended deployment of the
nVersion bits proposal - will be rejected by the nVersion >=3D 4 rule,
hard-forking them off the network. In short, we have in fact "burnt" a
version bit unnecessarily.

If you're going to accept hard-forking some people off the network, why
not just go with my stateless nVersion bits w/ time-expiration proposal
instead? The only case where it leads to a hard-fork is if a soft-fork
has been rejected by the time the upgrade deadline is reached. It's easy
to set this multiple years into the future, so I think in practice it
won't be a major issue for non-controversial soft-forks.

Equally, spending the time to implement the original stateful nVersion
bits proposal is possible as well, though higher risk due to the extra
complexity of tracking soft-fork state.

--=20
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
000000000000000008ba8215b2b644e33a98a762fd40710bc5e8c7f1b0e78375

--qcHopEYAB45HaUaB
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQGrBAEBCACVBQJV35ruXhSAAAAAABUAQGJsb2NraGFzaEBiaXRjb2luLm9yZzAw
MDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwOGJhODIxNWIyYjY0NGUzM2E5OGE3NjJmZDQwNzEwYmM1
ZThjN2YxYjBlNzgzNzUvFIAAAAAAFQARcGthLWFkZHJlc3NAZ251cGcub3JncGV0
ZUBwZXRlcnRvZC5vcmcACgkQwIXyHOf0udylVQf7BkMS0W0KFSKvTFViZYxxA9c5
OK2nzQqsUDd1f06QgV/wcEE35dVeNfqZhydFf51dmIqWjvHEUsTvgCmKxFcLpUsa
w9dXK10y/diywNyLXEm3e1C5TaMz5GF99GiYgcAMd7SUDvpIFqQHhzQ3sfQTwKW+
LEZr9OKmOCm7VsWPrxadpQCaAkNoiPk+OgJFUM9tOxWd876ZzvNoXjE24cXTBQzV
UTXUONMV+DNGD5lkYp14XjS7zg3uAsMB5sKaejJYp33r9YRmbstDjlbOJY6o8Of+
Dh5wSsoUtsrcm53mUbrd3MsIhSKo3ly33gENNuep2LklgzPgXGXJ+I9wBt8Gtw==
=uzwL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--qcHopEYAB45HaUaB--