path: root/a5/e41410459e2606c7a030d22549edb619db7f63

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 147D0EA6
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Fri, 30 Mar 2018 20:52:53 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-ua0-f177.google.com (mail-ua0-f177.google.com
	[209.85.217.177])
	by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 68DB4622
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Fri, 30 Mar 2018 20:52:52 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-ua0-f177.google.com with SMTP id q38so5971030uad.5
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Fri, 30 Mar 2018 13:52:52 -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:content-transfer-encoding;
	bh=XgohFK2xUCyRozTGhYiazQBIZuzmcsgrxfeycSR/DnI=;
	b=chakjNveaY7YhCZ8v9ZoatSd7vtLqh2AYYAlBhgC801fqr8f3KBSMpoWg/UFGgaUkB
	ZeLf2XWhcFag3bTiN1+RSB661AaKrOW31z7MZFFgccAfleZSknqWFTdLT9Kmj3ZfBFHA
	GJnIcaPY2JHGPv4r2BQ0qt44DEfEm5jPz7+xVOQLDNw5CgiEAvJy+YNj3C3YXTFv1bac
	MaMOKhjtUz8e/7kKgy0omftqF9dOsMMA+eYghq/ECvo/jJXfeZAn/084fHsCEf6FxTTw
	hRgjUW+89oGJqu9tn99+UC0WNoHys4aQQCZ5ghCj9HtkY4qTxwEstG580uf2KgOPcvwG
	cC+g==
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:content-transfer-encoding;
	bh=XgohFK2xUCyRozTGhYiazQBIZuzmcsgrxfeycSR/DnI=;
	b=MIJW+fimuomVIaJCNgU+6B4iJYEncEHY2MuhtYOOJzXM1Wy+sLCkJgMxEgYsciIpjn
	yOM0K0DxsCOrHRv2Sa4CQUTiQeZMKe45g+dkt46Lhwy8vnXJ5Nc/jm2woie4Yc9/GWB0
	ta1vJzT1oxqLodHSnZlhFvhijNKqy+fnl8o/M9tRv4DLtIQmV0C4QKcBJzwTxSRKQflB
	54h+nSpAGAKZ78RzEinhHhifQQDcmY9q8t1PtI9R6rKeXus5j72p3EpUxPzA+pATRpLt
	r2LisU5N8N7dxxztboIpT6h+TbWIRkSi59SI4xBJq6sMKEzVukuIgKAc5vYO8u89UTpi
	VQOw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AElRT7HPdYoy4zuxDPKb25s7vMAgTBa/okmtrbPITO+JJKOHvWwr27MJ
	CTbuKTftiBisgFnPh/rU8fH0SXsqOu/cujXJqDT+JA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AIpwx49IEqCGGJMi528xqj2vIM1Fes7s4zutzZjBDjfWaXcDHgMyjCJtku/GyDSxhaTT0YcAR66IKtpy1VgrYZOzbLI=
X-Received: by 10.176.91.146 with SMTP id y18mr340850uae.46.1522443171461;
	Fri, 30 Mar 2018 13:52:51 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.31.168.211 with HTTP; Fri, 30 Mar 2018 13:52:50 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAAQZUuCW+dijXgLOkDwjx8sCnhFbygqaT-0gLxAwx7EEx=VcaQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAQZUuDEJeMFTxxJcgUEmTUQbxM_ZWkBD1k+UOvafsqbqj++Jg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABm2gDq2pa_8T7Xhniuyh86eTi=PmSA_t=2Z0nYp1LhN=zc_NA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAQZUuCW+dijXgLOkDwjx8sCnhFbygqaT-0gLxAwx7EEx=VcaQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2018 22:52:50 +0200
Message-ID: <CABm2gDpRY81cxyMmBnKyTefk=6d89YCxPVZjt3C2qwNq1sTK_g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Samad Sajanlal <samad.sajanlal@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
	DKIM_VALID, FROM_EXCESS_BASE64,
	RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=no version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
	smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Soft Fork Activation & Enforcement w/o Signaling?
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: Fri, 30 Mar 2018 20:52:53 -0000

Yes, in fact, you don't need to lose those bits like bitcoin by
imposing that the version is greater than that. But I guess just doing
the same is simpler.

On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 7:14 AM, Samad Sajanlal
<samad.sajanlal@gmail.com> wrote:
> Excellent - Thanks for your response Jorge. This helps us plan out the
> future upgrades properly.
> Since I see 0.15 and 0.16 use block versions as 0x20000000, whereas the
> current deployed codebase (based on bitcoin 0.9.4) makes versions 0x00000=
002
> (as seen by a 0.15 client), it appears safe to activate soft forks which
> require a minimum of version 3 and 4 blocks (0x00000003 and 0x00000004,
> respectively). Would you agree?
>
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 7:55 AM, Jorge Tim=C3=B3n <jtimon@jtimon.cc> wrot=
e:
>>
>> Yes, you can activate softforks at a given height.
>> I don't see any reason why you couldn't rebase to 0.16 directly.
>> The block version bumping was a mistake in bip34, you don't really
>> need to bump the version number. In any case, I would recommend
>> reading bip34 and what it activates in the code. IIRC the last thing
>> was bip65.
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 11:04 PM, Samad Sajanlal via bitcoin-dev
>> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>> > Is it possible to activate soft forks such as BIP65 and BIP66 without
>> > prior
>> > signaling from miners? I noticed in chainparams.cpp that there are blo=
ck
>> > heights where the enforcement begins.
>> >
>> > I understand this is already active on bitcoin. I'm working on a proje=
ct
>> > that is a clone of a clone of bitcoin, and we currently do not have
>> > BIP65 or
>> > BIP66 enforced - no signaling of these soft forks either (most of the
>> > network is on a source code fork of bitcoin 0.9). This project does no=
t
>> > and
>> > never intends to attempt to replace bitcoin - we know that without
>> > bitcoin
>> > our project could never exist, so we owe a great deal of gratitude to
>> > the
>> > bitcoin developers.
>> >
>> > If the entire network upgrades to the correct version of the software
>> > (based
>> > on bitcoin 0.15), which includes the block height that has enforcement=
,
>> > can
>> > we simply skip over the signaling and go straight into
>> > activation/enforcement?
>> >
>> > At this time we are lucky that our network is very small, so it is
>> > reasonable to assume that the whole network will upgrade their clients
>> > within a short window (~2 weeks). We would schedule the activation ~2
>> > months
>> > out from when the client is released, just to ensure everyone has time
>> > to
>> > upgrade.
>> >
>> > We have been stuck on the 0.9 code branch and my goal is to bring it u=
p
>> > to
>> > 0.15 at least, so that we can implement Segwit and other key features
>> > that
>> > bitcoin has introduced. The 0.15 client currently works with regards t=
o
>> > sending and receiving transactions but the soft forks are not active. =
I
>> > understand that activating them will segregate the 0.15 clients onto
>> > their
>> > own fork, which is why I'd like to understand the repercussions of doi=
ng
>> > it
>> > without any signaling beforehand. I also would prefer not to have to
>> > make
>> > intermediate releases such as 0.10, 0.11.. etc to get the soft forks
>> > activated.
>> >
>> > Another related question - does the block version get bumped up
>> > automatically at the time that a soft fork activates, or is there
>> > additional
>> > stuff that I need to do within the code to ensure it bumps up at the
>> > same
>> > time? From what I saw in the code it appears that it will bump up
>> > automatically, but I would like some confirmation on that.
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> > Samad
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>> >
>
>