1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
|
Return-Path: <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B0E098EE
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 11 Jun 2017 15:06:03 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-ua0-f172.google.com (mail-ua0-f172.google.com
[209.85.217.172])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 333F8EB
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 11 Jun 2017 15:06:03 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-ua0-f172.google.com with SMTP id q15so48468940uaa.2
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 11 Jun 2017 08:06:03 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=jtimon-cc.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623;
h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to
:cc; bh=QFugQU2StgLeDX+/0mn7H+tIgMlzPHDzSIyQGsiXaKM=;
b=sUFCQmOyK/PB5TvE0Di1bl4WC7/4sWXAJSqww0XJBVmMAb1Isr3RpRLuqVnPTgs68N
iDy41hYKguY7TsVxUQJx7hRqDNoSURJn59EBA+8+lNBI0kfL5pS4+yXXbwYJNEPAEKvy
/fHh+P3NSmbbstTDpvqp4qJXKxr/sAR+iHIhFaqU/zub3VSdNz8pSvT0Q3nuwKcynoqH
2WzbWzc+rB2LsQqqpCnSB/7gQ2mTUAxP61h5rLhR5VU6l9OY1Jyy0AgGg7LEz7SNxEO2
5UFXFJQvdQu9puQ4PRZGB6QC8jpXes5LqbmeNxrM5P8fYv6AZTVeRWkqHIqJwXDLh6Qx
UYFA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date
:message-id:subject:to:cc;
bh=QFugQU2StgLeDX+/0mn7H+tIgMlzPHDzSIyQGsiXaKM=;
b=rE46y7ctQ0Ab0p3dRcPF5Jqe8DuE4yreOE+I1i7htLLxAbG5/8RfzYPd2UM4isaob5
TuPJtnhJTlvGR9uzw2p75QAg8XPKo/deDr5q/60YWJlnna0hWyb0I3FaC6QcqO5Re+1C
I0eOTQWgbJ4SN7YXzlPFiLYh/6+/96jbDyFax8khsf7nGADrR1P1VG/SMoMRonnCR/10
5DFs3r9Xo58xSwmeww3mQQZpI78Nu0nel7l1bld/80jJnhkIc5Q2LgWpeIwzQUUdM+9p
u8THB3F8izXeKhIp7IyQ4+7LHXVJmBy1MebmJ+I3bH1891hfbbegdV5LmkK2EQZQDT8i
IclQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AODbwcAfKVzLcWvqMqTysG/NQ8y71JKCh4/rdAgnpc2ZVFY5OA2iFdP2
Ve5TnSVDuFMdsdXpq33FRSom8gBSBgw3
X-Received: by 10.159.32.194 with SMTP id 60mr7128896uaa.142.1497193562329;
Sun, 11 Jun 2017 08:06:02 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.31.52.213 with HTTP; Sun, 11 Jun 2017 08:06:01 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAAUaCyiwnspvJ9HY41GK8tMsA4ezpFPR1Ka9upik6UwsYBASnQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAUaCygRaXNX5xWuka1xrrXwKv1tqevT9-cHd-5mh_AkHpg9gA@mail.gmail.com>
<CAAUaCyh_uBcZ7ntbLtOeOAK-6nt2Rx-cxx27QaiXRKkije21AQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CAAUaCyiwnspvJ9HY41GK8tMsA4ezpFPR1Ka9upik6UwsYBASnQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2017 17:06:01 +0200
Message-ID: <CABm2gDoS0eiiabxbfQc4Cc7Jqk-XfDDL6QdGhDn-TzrDpd8Hfw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jacob Eliosoff <jacob.eliosoff@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] The BIP148 chain split may be inevitable
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2017 15:06:03 -0000
> I believe that means 80% of hashrate would need to be running BIP91 (signaling bit 4) by ~June 30 (so BIP91 locks in ~July 13, activates ~July 27), not "a few days ago" as I claimed. So, tight timing, but not impossible.
This is not needed, if segwit is locked in by aug 1 (with or without
bip91), no split will happen even if segwit is not active yet.
So the hashrate majority could avoid the split that way (or adopting bip148).
But it doesn't seem like they are planning to do this (with or without
bip91), the last thing I've heard, it's they will wait until
"immediately" before they signal sw (but there must be some language
barrier here, perhaps "immediately" and "inmediatamente" are false
friends). The reason why they will wait until "immediately" instead of
just starting to signal sw today, it's still unclear to me.
The other way to prevent the split is if bip148 users abort bip148
deployment, but unfortunately that seems increasingly unlikely.
|
