path: root/ac/2b2f9847e3faf106be8fbe7e44e164f2965de7

Return-Path: <sergio.d.lerner@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
	[172.17.192.35])
	by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5C4538E3
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Tue, 27 Jun 2017 15:43:36 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-qk0-f180.google.com (mail-qk0-f180.google.com
	[209.85.220.180])
	by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 80A80184
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Tue, 27 Jun 2017 15:43:34 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-qk0-f180.google.com with SMTP id d78so28334499qkb.1
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Tue, 27 Jun 2017 08:43:34 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025;
	h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to
	:cc; bh=vMd2UcFsv7PW8XMClusc4XEAcp+v4KERa6lCrZbuoyM=;
	b=IXwH3bjcRAuxjPqJj6MqAVFBgR3n6ePgCID6EQ7WMJVyvowcL5Om8nN8q+ifyLBgc0
	RXU/skr5orSgnIy+ngzlkcDBW+XZPIUUKdbPErJFifimO4wYBcZOtucc0/5CaHYBAyV3
	Aw2tb7+SWUWARsTKbhFv3szfp4GbYk2BDRxVppyHbzyMOu/7I6g9GYsNY2lPoTYYDxqz
	aKqQanGFYKSU4M9oeLiwDsxo3MH2SFXU/VPJja4bC4ohocktz+kc95o8dtPqgU2I1uij
	IhKQklE4it42l+NB67oNJuDtGZdccCN0oAwOABRk29gczTuX1Nrtnr5Q85fJ8aZMponi
	rUlw==
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=vMd2UcFsv7PW8XMClusc4XEAcp+v4KERa6lCrZbuoyM=;
	b=eorVzn5sy8L6NgHiNvZ6HEazaczbFgGLA5ZiGrjcYyBNQ3CA+oPgPaJUKw5ful318Q
	A7le0JSoek3HNzilnx+8gu8Kmt+C7cVzPQ3yVux9DfzS/ifs5GecEbPue4zzHtm91NAi
	p90H3xpsEU2vm6zyMq0NSFULd5xn9cNSi66kgeCBPXEZaKrDDc8Q7Sm8rucrtd1CNfra
	DLBbhYHtKVvl/ukXghg21p0slP8bUguco4W842ANm0OBD3eW6X3uT8kO8afrJ3UvLY7v
	kxQFFxwyVNNf3w05/mWLMxDZaGMfZlvrA8IJrUwzmTl/B08IWst8gPTFzp85BYHwtm2f
	JFlg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKS2vOz9JFruSf5n566lo0S4veh3IcFcVnzXK+MLyfCJILrKRY6RzoUo
	S71b9RLnlZ6PfSw1tEybLVzRmP9i/g==
X-Received: by 10.55.186.66 with SMTP id k63mr7358506qkf.243.1498578213588;
	Tue, 27 Jun 2017 08:43:33 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.12.135.113 with HTTP; Tue, 27 Jun 2017 08:42:53 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAAUaCyijF1eHSffUYf9Mrv+KP5H+NLBcy5MEhMUyT6Rxcbx93g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJowKgLtu-HUDuakk4DDU53nyChbQk_zY=f5OO2j1Za95PdL7w@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAS2fgSZ_X3G7j3-S6tAGPe2TOTT2umBB8a0RHpD-wAHN9aPgw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAFMkqK_73RrpaS2oJQ-0o6oC29m6a1h411_P7HmVcAyX712Sgw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAUaCyg2Nmsa2UaO2msBqSFeHLetUUN+cTETvSSmB7c=nH9ZhQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<BC758648-BD4F-4DEF-8B79-7E8E0A887033@friedenbach.org>
	<CAAUaCyh+4m+t9d4yOoEOf6VUDyJ=sUpDT3hD3cDmd9dcBQZ+nw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJowKgJcp7d30LsrDZ5iR6-k9Ncz0N90pxs2GmJkuG1qYDG6GQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAOG=w-tPgJ5baaNiZC5rTs_y=eV7AU+F=aGaH+uObqaB-VgL2w@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAUaCyijF1eHSffUYf9Mrv+KP5H+NLBcy5MEhMUyT6Rxcbx93g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Sergio Demian Lerner <sergio.d.lerner@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2017 12:42:53 -0300
Message-ID: <CAKzdR-rvP9RLJ=qGDMVyOT3WVqp7q2tUPpzbaQZ=wStsFSCbWA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jacob Eliosoff <jacob.eliosoff@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c0454fa16d4d10552f2eeb1"
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
	DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, HTML_MESSAGE,
	HTML_OBFUSCATE_05_10, 
	RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM autolearn=no 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] Miners forced to run non-core code in order to
 get segwit activated
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: Tue, 27 Jun 2017 15:43:36 -0000

--94eb2c0454fa16d4d10552f2eeb1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Currently the only implementation that fulfills the requirements of the NYA
agreement is the segwit2x/btc1 implementation, which is being finalized
this week.

Segwit2mb does not fulfill the NYA agreement.

I'm asking now the segwit2x development team when a BIP will be ready so
that Core has the opportunity to evaluate the technical proposal.




On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 1:05 AM, Jacob Eliosoff via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> Well, this Saturday's "Chinese roundtable" statement from a bunch of
> miners (https://pastebin.com/b3St9VCF) says they intend "NYA" in the
> coinbase as support for "the New York consensus SegWit2x program btc1 (
> https://github.com/btc1)", whose code includes the (accelerated
> 336-block) BIP 91 change.  So, other facts or interpretations could come =
to
> light, but until they do we should probably assume that's what the "NYA"
> (which just broke 80% over the last 24h) means.
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 10:11 PM, Mark Friedenbach <mark@friedenbach.org>
> wrote:
>
>> 80% have set "NYA" in their coinbase string. We have no idea what that
>> means. People are equating it to BIP 91 -- but BIP 91 did not exist at
>> the time of the New York agreement, and differs from the actual text
>> of the NYA in substantive ways. The "Segwit2MB" that existed at the
>> time of the NYA, and which was explicitly referenced by the text is
>> the proposal by Sergio Demian Lerner that was made to this mailing
>> list on 31 March. The text of the NYA grants no authority for
>> upgrading this proposal while remaining compliant with the agreement.
>> This is without even considering the fact that in the days after the
>> NYA there was disagreement among those who signed it as to what it
>> meant.
>>
>> I feel it is a very dangerous and unwarranted assumption people are
>> making that what we are seeing now is either 80% support for BIP-91 or
>> for the code in the btc1 repo.
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 6:36 PM, Erik Aronesty <erik@q32.com> wrote:
>> > # Jacob Eliosoff:
>> >
>> >>  will start orphaning non-bit-1 blocks before Aug 1, and we avoid a
>> split.
>> >
>> > Correct.  There are 2 short activation periods in BIP91 either of whic=
h
>> > would avoid a split.
>> >
>> > # Gregory Maxwell:
>> >
>> >> unclear to me _exactly_ what it would need to implement to be
>> consistent.
>> >
>> > This is the relevant pull req to core:
>> >
>> > https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10444
>> >
>> > Seems OK.  It's technically running now on testnet5.   I think it (or =
a
>> > -bip148 option) should be merged as soon as feasible.
>> >
>> >> previously debunked "XT" and "Classic" hysteria.
>> >
>> > apples vs oranges, imo.   segwit is not a contentious feature.   the
>> > "bundling" in segwit2x is, but that's not the issue here.   the issue
>> is we
>> > are indirectly requiring miners that strongly support segwit to instal=
l
>> > consensus protocol changes outside of bitcoin's standard reference.
>>  80% of
>> > them have signaled they will do so.   these are uncharted waters.
>> >
>> >
>> > On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 6:57 PM, Jacob Eliosoff via bitcoin-dev
>> > <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I could be wrong, but the latest BIP91 implementation (also included =
in
>> >> Segwit2x) cuts the activation period to 336 blocks (2.33 days).  (Thi=
s
>> has
>> >> been updated at
>> >> https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0091.mediawiki.)  So
>> if 80%
>> >> of hashpower is actually running that code and signaling on bit 4 by
>> July 25
>> >> or so, then those 80+% will start orphaning non-bit-1 blocks before
>> Aug 1,
>> >> and we avoid a split.
>> >>
>> >> There may still be a few non-bit-1 blocks that get orphaned after Aug
>> 1,
>> >> because they're mined by old BIP141 nodes.  But it seems like very fe=
w
>> >> miners won't be signaling either Segwit2x *or* BIP141 by then...
>> >>
>> >> Make sense?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 6:48 PM, Mark Friedenbach <
>> mark@friedenbach.org>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Why do you say activation by August 1st is likely? That would requir=
e
>> an
>> >>> entire difficulty adjustment period with >=3D95% bit1 signaling. Tha=
t
>> seems a
>> >>> tall order to organize in the scant few weeks remaining.
>> >>>
>> >>> On Jun 20, 2017, at 3:29 PM, Jacob Eliosoff via bitcoin-dev
>> >>> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> If segwit is activated before Aug 1, as now seems likely, there will
>> be
>> >>> no split that day.  But if activation is via Segwit2x (also likely),
>> and at
>> >>> least some nodes do & some don't follow through with the HF 3mo late=
r
>> >>> (again, likely), agreed w/ Greg that *then* we'll see a split -
>> probably in
>> >>> Sep/Oct.  How those two chains will match up and how the split will
>> play out
>> >>> is anyone's guess...
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> On Jun 20, 2017 6:16 PM, "Hampus Sj=C3=B6berg via bitcoin-dev"
>> >>> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> > Ironically, it looks like most of the segwit2x signaling miners ar=
e
>> >>> > faking it (because they're not signaling segwit which it requires)=
.
>> >>> > It'll be unfortunate if some aren't faking it and start orphaning
>> >>> > their own blocks because they are failing to signal segwit.
>> >>>
>> >>> Well, they're doing some kind of "pre-signaling" in the coinbase at
>> the
>> >>> moment, because the segwit2x project is still in alpha-phase
>> according to
>> >>> the timeline. They're just showing commitment.
>> >>> I'm sure they will begin signaling on version bit 4/BIP91 as well as
>> >>> actually running a segwit2x node when the time comes.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> > As far as prevent a chain split goes, all those things
>> >>> > (148/91/segwit2x(per today)) effectively guarantee a chainsplit--
>> so I
>> >>> > don't think that holds.
>> >>>
>> >>> Segwit2x/BIP91/BIP148 will orphan miners that do not run a Segwit2x
>> (or
>> >>> BIP148) node, because they wouldn't have the new consensus rule of
>> requiring
>> >>> all blocks to signal for segwit.
>> >>> I don't believe there would be any long lasting chainsplit though
>> >>> (because of the ~80% hashrate support on segwit2x), perhaps 2-3
>> blocks if we
>> >>> get unlucky.
>> >>>
>> >>> Hampus
>> >>>
>> >>> 2017-06-20 23:49 GMT+02:00 Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev
>> >>> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 3:44 PM, Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev
>> >>>> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>> >>>> > Because a large percentage of miners are indifferent, right now
>> miners
>> >>>> > have
>> >>>> > to choose between BIP148 and Segwit2x if they want to activate
>> Segwit.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Miners can simply continuing signaling segwit, which will leave the=
m
>> >>>> at least soft-fork compatible with BIP148 and BIP91 (and god knows
>> >>>> what "segwit2x" is since they keep changing the actual definition a=
nd
>> >>>> do not have a specification; but last I saw the near-term behavior
>> the
>> >>>> same as BIP91 but with a radically reduced activation window, so th=
e
>> >>>> story would be the same there in the near term).
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Ironically, it looks like most of the segwit2x signaling miners are
>> >>>> faking it (because they're not signaling segwit which it requires).
>> >>>> It'll be unfortunate if some aren't faking it and start orphaning
>> >>>> their own blocks because they are failing to signal segwit.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I don't think the rejection of segwit2x from Bitcoin's developers
>> >>>> could be any more resolute than what we've already seen:
>> >>>> https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Segwit_support
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 5:22 PM, Mark Friedenbach via bitcoin-dev
>> >>>> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>> >>>> > I think it is very na=C3=AFve to assume that any shift would be
>> temporary.
>> >>>> > We have a hard enough time getting miners to proactively upgrade =
to
>> >>>> > recent versions of the reference bitcoin daemon. If miners
>> interpret
>> >>>> > the situation as being forced to run non-reference software in
>> order
>> >>>> > to prevent a chain split because a lack of support from Bitcoin
>> Core,
>> >>>> > that could be a one-way street.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I think this is somewhat naive and sounds a lot like the repeat of
>> the
>> >>>> previously debunked "XT" and "Classic" hysteria.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> There is a reason that segwit2x is pretty much unanimously rejected
>> by
>> >>>> the technical community.  And just like with XT/Classic/Unlimited
>> >>>> you'll continue to see a strong correlation with people who are
>> >>>> unwilling and unable to keep updating the software at an acceptable
>> >>>> level of quality-- esp. because the very founding on their fork is
>> >>>> predicated on discarding those properties.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> If miners want to go off and create an altcoin-- welp, thats
>> something
>> >>>> they can always do,  and nothing about that will force anyone to go
>> >>>> along with it.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> As far as prevent a chain split goes, all those things
>> >>>> (148/91/segwit2x(per today)) effectively guarantee a chainsplit-- s=
o
>> I
>> >>>> don't think that holds.
>> >>>> _______________________________________________
>> >>>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> >>>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> >>>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> _______________________________________________
>> >>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> >>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> >>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> _______________________________________________
>> >>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> >>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> >>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> >> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> >> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>> >>
>> >
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
>

--94eb2c0454fa16d4d10552f2eeb1
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">Currently the only implementation that fulfills the requir=
ements of the NYA agreement is the segwit2x/btc1 implementation, which is b=
eing finalized this week.=C2=A0<div><br></div><div>Segwit2mb does not fulfi=
ll the NYA agreement.=C2=A0<div><br></div><div>I&#39;m asking now the segwi=
t2x development team when a BIP will be ready so that Core has the opportun=
ity to evaluate the technical proposal.=C2=A0</div><div><br></div><div><br>=
<div><div><br></div></div></div></div></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br>=
<div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 1:05 AM, Jacob Eliosoff =
via bitcoin-dev <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.l=
inuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org=
</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin=
:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr">W=
ell, this Saturday&#39;s &quot;Chinese roundtable&quot; statement from a bu=
nch of miners=C2=A0(<a href=3D"https://pastebin.com/b3St9VCF" target=3D"_bl=
ank">https://pastebin.com/<wbr>b3St9VCF</a>) says they intend &quot;NYA&quo=
t; in the coinbase as support for &quot;the New York consensus SegWit2x pro=
gram btc1 (<a href=3D"https://github.com/btc1" target=3D"_blank">https://gi=
thub.com/btc1</a>)&quot;, whose code includes the (accelerated 336-block) B=
IP 91 change.=C2=A0 So, other facts or interpretations could come to light,=
 but until they do we should probably assume that&#39;s what the &quot;NYA&=
quot; (which just broke 80% over the last 24h) means.<div><br></div></div><=
div class=3D"HOEnZb"><div class=3D"h5"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div =
class=3D"gmail_quote">On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 10:11 PM, Mark Friedenbach <s=
pan dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:mark@friedenbach.org" target=3D"_blan=
k">mark@friedenbach.org</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail=
_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:=
1ex">80% have set &quot;NYA&quot; in their coinbase string. We have no idea=
 what that<br>
means. People are equating it to BIP 91 -- but BIP 91 did not exist at<br>
the time of the New York agreement, and differs from the actual text<br>
of the NYA in substantive ways. The &quot;Segwit2MB&quot; that existed at t=
he<br>
time of the NYA, and which was explicitly referenced by the text is<br>
the proposal by Sergio Demian Lerner that was made to this mailing<br>
list on 31 March. The text of the NYA grants no authority for<br>
upgrading this proposal while remaining compliant with the agreement.<br>
This is without even considering the fact that in the days after the<br>
NYA there was disagreement among those who signed it as to what it<br>
meant.<br>
<br>
I feel it is a very dangerous and unwarranted assumption people are<br>
making that what we are seeing now is either 80% support for BIP-91 or<br>
for the code in the btc1 repo.<br>
<div class=3D"m_7368660441183520488HOEnZb"><div class=3D"m_7368660441183520=
488h5"><br>
On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 6:36 PM, Erik Aronesty &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:erik@q=
32.com" target=3D"_blank">erik@q32.com</a>&gt; wrote:<br>
&gt; # Jacob Eliosoff:<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;=C2=A0 will start orphaning non-bit-1 blocks before Aug 1, and we a=
void a split.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; Correct.=C2=A0 There are 2 short activation periods in BIP91 either of=
 which<br>
&gt; would avoid a split.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; # Gregory Maxwell:<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; unclear to me _exactly_ what it would need to implement to be cons=
istent.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; This is the relevant pull req to core:<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; <a href=3D"https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10444" rel=3D"noref=
errer" target=3D"_blank">https://github.com/bitcoin/bit<wbr>coin/pull/10444=
</a><br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; Seems OK.=C2=A0 It&#39;s technically running now on testnet5.=C2=A0 =
=C2=A0I think it (or a<br>
&gt; -bip148 option) should be merged as soon as feasible.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; previously debunked &quot;XT&quot; and &quot;Classic&quot; hysteri=
a.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; apples vs oranges, imo.=C2=A0 =C2=A0segwit is not a contentious featur=
e.=C2=A0 =C2=A0the<br>
&gt; &quot;bundling&quot; in segwit2x is, but that&#39;s not the issue here=
.=C2=A0 =C2=A0the issue is we<br>
&gt; are indirectly requiring miners that strongly support segwit to instal=
l<br>
&gt; consensus protocol changes outside of bitcoin&#39;s standard reference=
.=C2=A0 =C2=A080% of<br>
&gt; them have signaled they will do so.=C2=A0 =C2=A0these are uncharted wa=
ters.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 6:57 PM, Jacob Eliosoff via bitcoin-dev<br>
&gt; &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D=
"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfounda<wbr>tion.org</a>&gt; wrote:<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; I could be wrong, but the latest BIP91 implementation (also includ=
ed in<br>
&gt;&gt; Segwit2x) cuts the activation period to 336 blocks (2.33 days).=C2=
=A0 (This has<br>
&gt;&gt; been updated at<br>
&gt;&gt; <a href=3D"https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0091.me=
diawiki" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://github.com/bitcoin/bi=
p<wbr>s/blob/master/bip-0091.mediawi<wbr>ki</a>.)=C2=A0 So if 80%<br>
&gt;&gt; of hashpower is actually running that code and signaling on bit 4 =
by July 25<br>
&gt;&gt; or so, then those 80+% will start orphaning non-bit-1 blocks befor=
e Aug 1,<br>
&gt;&gt; and we avoid a split.<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; There may still be a few non-bit-1 blocks that get orphaned after =
Aug 1,<br>
&gt;&gt; because they&#39;re mined by old BIP141 nodes.=C2=A0 But it seems =
like very few<br>
&gt;&gt; miners won&#39;t be signaling either Segwit2x *or* BIP141 by then.=
..<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; Make sense?<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 6:48 PM, Mark Friedenbach &lt;<a href=3D"m=
ailto:mark@friedenbach.org" target=3D"_blank">mark@friedenbach.org</a>&gt;<=
br>
&gt;&gt; wrote:<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; Why do you say activation by August 1st is likely? That would =
require an<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; entire difficulty adjustment period with &gt;=3D95% bit1 signa=
ling. That seems a<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; tall order to organize in the scant few weeks remaining.<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; On Jun 20, 2017, at 3:29 PM, Jacob Eliosoff via bitcoin-dev<br=
>
&gt;&gt;&gt; &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" t=
arget=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfounda<wbr>tion.org</a>&gt; wrote:<=
br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; If segwit is activated before Aug 1, as now seems likely, ther=
e will be<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; no split that day.=C2=A0 But if activation is via Segwit2x (al=
so likely), and at<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; least some nodes do &amp; some don&#39;t follow through with t=
he HF 3mo later<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; (again, likely), agreed w/ Greg that *then* we&#39;ll see a sp=
lit - probably in<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; Sep/Oct.=C2=A0 How those two chains will match up and how the =
split will play out<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; is anyone&#39;s guess...<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; On Jun 20, 2017 6:16 PM, &quot;Hampus Sj=C3=B6berg via bitcoin=
-dev&quot;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" t=
arget=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfounda<wbr>tion.org</a>&gt; wrote:<=
br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; Ironically, it looks like most of the segwit2x signaling =
miners are<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; faking it (because they&#39;re not signaling segwit which=
 it requires).<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; It&#39;ll be unfortunate if some aren&#39;t faking it and=
 start orphaning<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; their own blocks because they are failing to signal segwi=
t.<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; Well, they&#39;re doing some kind of &quot;pre-signaling&quot;=
 in the coinbase at the<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; moment, because the segwit2x project is still in alpha-phase a=
ccording to<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; the timeline. They&#39;re just showing commitment.<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; I&#39;m sure they will begin signaling on version bit 4/BIP91 =
as well as<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; actually running a segwit2x node when the time comes.<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; As far as prevent a chain split goes, all those things<br=
>
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; (148/91/segwit2x(per today)) effectively guarantee a chai=
nsplit-- so I<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; don&#39;t think that holds.<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; Segwit2x/BIP91/BIP148 will orphan miners that do not run a Seg=
wit2x (or<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; BIP148) node, because they wouldn&#39;t have the new consensus=
 rule of requiring<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; all blocks to signal for segwit.<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; I don&#39;t believe there would be any long lasting chainsplit=
 though<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; (because of the ~80% hashrate support on segwit2x), perhaps 2-=
3 blocks if we<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; get unlucky.<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; Hampus<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; 2017-06-20 23:49 GMT+02:00 Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" t=
arget=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfounda<wbr>tion.org</a>&gt;:<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 3:44 PM, Erik Aronesty via bitcoin=
-dev<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.or=
g" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfounda<wbr>tion.org</a>&gt; wro=
te:<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; Because a large percentage of miners are indifferent,=
 right now miners<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; have<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; to choose between BIP148 and Segwit2x if they want to=
 activate Segwit.<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; Miners can simply continuing signaling segwit, which will =
leave them<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; at least soft-fork compatible with BIP148 and BIP91 (and g=
od knows<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; what &quot;segwit2x&quot; is since they keep changing the =
actual definition and<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; do not have a specification; but last I saw the near-term =
behavior the<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; same as BIP91 but with a radically reduced activation wind=
ow, so the<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; story would be the same there in the near term).<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; Ironically, it looks like most of the segwit2x signaling m=
iners are<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; faking it (because they&#39;re not signaling segwit which =
it requires).<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; It&#39;ll be unfortunate if some aren&#39;t faking it and =
start orphaning<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; their own blocks because they are failing to signal segwit=
.<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; I don&#39;t think the rejection of segwit2x from Bitcoin&#=
39;s developers<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; could be any more resolute than what we&#39;ve already see=
n:<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; <a href=3D"https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Segwit_support" rel=
=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Seg<wbr>wit_su=
pport</a><br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 5:22 PM, Mark Friedenbach via bitc=
oin-dev<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.or=
g" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfounda<wbr>tion.org</a>&gt; wro=
te:<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; I think it is very na=C3=AFve to assume that any shif=
t would be temporary.<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; We have a hard enough time getting miners to proactiv=
ely upgrade to<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; recent versions of the reference bitcoin daemon. If m=
iners interpret<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; the situation as being forced to run non-reference so=
ftware in order<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; to prevent a chain split because a lack of support fr=
om Bitcoin Core,<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; that could be a one-way street.<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; I think this is somewhat naive and sounds a lot like the r=
epeat of the<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; previously debunked &quot;XT&quot; and &quot;Classic&quot;=
 hysteria.<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; There is a reason that segwit2x is pretty much unanimously=
 rejected by<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; the technical community.=C2=A0 And just like with XT/Class=
ic/Unlimited<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; you&#39;ll continue to see a strong correlation with peopl=
e who are<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; unwilling and unable to keep updating the software at an a=
cceptable<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; level of quality-- esp. because the very founding on their=
 fork is<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; predicated on discarding those properties.<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; If miners want to go off and create an altcoin-- welp, tha=
ts something<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; they can always do,=C2=A0 and nothing about that will forc=
e anyone to go<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; along with it.<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; As far as prevent a chain split goes, all those things<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; (148/91/segwit2x(per today)) effectively guarantee a chain=
split-- so I<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; don&#39;t think that holds.<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; ______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; <a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" t=
arget=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundat<wbr>ion.org</a><br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; <a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listi=
nfo/bitcoin-dev" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfo=
undation.<wbr>org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-d<wbr>ev</a><br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; ______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; <a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" targe=
t=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundat<wbr>ion.org</a><br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; <a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/=
bitcoin-dev" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfounda=
tion.<wbr>org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-d<wbr>ev</a><br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; ______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; <a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" targe=
t=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundat<wbr>ion.org</a><br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; <a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/=
bitcoin-dev" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfounda=
tion.<wbr>org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-d<wbr>ev</a><br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; ______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
&gt;&gt; bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
&gt;&gt; <a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D=
"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundat<wbr>ion.org</a><br>
&gt;&gt; <a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc=
oin-dev" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation=
.<wbr>org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-d<wbr>ev</a><br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;<br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>
</div></div><br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.=
<wbr>linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" =
rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.<wbr>org=
/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-<wbr>dev</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>

--94eb2c0454fa16d4d10552f2eeb1--