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
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
|
Return-Path: <james.hilliard1@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 893CB4A4
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 26 May 2017 21:30:39 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-oi0-f53.google.com (mail-oi0-f53.google.com
[209.85.218.53])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8FB27E4
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 26 May 2017 21:30:38 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-oi0-f53.google.com with SMTP id l18so27763260oig.2
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 26 May 2017 14:30:38 -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=8WIzNNJYSK7/fkZfv/A6XAUkxCnARwQFnkABjYQqABU=;
b=RGX+ODOQIy3yhLRjoMmFDrY7i7baqeMIZlIuDiKYjQdXYOTmtGslIolnVqvbJVZhsQ
3ptK1TuoWD0wKUHET9F1QrjetUX32N0Sk6u1+Yq5ASYJvUKlzgBUW3lIgqDJJrKdLNDK
OAykWEUZzCmPNP6tF8GrQRrCSxrm3xaz8hz/lMnHfDQnc7nxIRZA2APetxjMoE7w65Nh
z698Q4q7C8RztKMU73X2jyNJxglxHoe0LervfnpbOU6Ct6fW3fZ8NLUVbL/sCzMnO3o7
2EWxmTVLcOiGXuZc3iE4pa6Vk/h4yovWUev0Cw7g/6wazgzxbCi4NeoiC0VJrdj7YIZ6
O3Iw==
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=8WIzNNJYSK7/fkZfv/A6XAUkxCnARwQFnkABjYQqABU=;
b=gJqbDzaOsYfHZzGqXDVcqAY8YHNbNoeFUYTf46t2L3UyYnAfJEPD+XDfv4zCDXVd9N
zT9sYTNr19O1XbH6iIpGmzFlsmNtWSwshGuyyDgOxkdSU4CUDt+JWYt9ZAw1BTRLHaZ9
oLXIUaIXrhyDMfaoTvX8PoCZjWmsCoIYm8pJGmaTVrn2AMahulxJ8iPvCPvLf51wlKqw
jBOa0XqYuTx6w3TSt095N1yuImUsTzxT2iv5OiUxgK9Q4VswUgrjJqO5CXEamI1DjaPi
ax/+1RwHUeEcFIqI0l8FnYNTparKTkAhb0EsTrlWxE5QqwYmlUBBCu1BhZSxlcKPSAbm
EbCw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AODbwcD6EsFU/6wr40k78tWHFIENYRErKpGkJv+9ARX4Z4ovo/9wYEci
n/rpnUGgtFms1mzs8B++QVCzSEmwaw==
X-Received: by 10.157.14.230 with SMTP id 93mr2286819otj.97.1495834237696;
Fri, 26 May 2017 14:30:37 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.182.115.198 with HTTP; Fri, 26 May 2017 14:30:37 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAAUaCyj1Yo+CpmwR40U711wknwerYeE_WkLERHuKf3uX-fcQjA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAUaCyiHUOQ-rhN5XiGyMc6ocfsNBuH_tzK_QWu7sg1=Qd-o=Q@mail.gmail.com>
<9e2e7009-7bec-845a-bc9f-3ee03d4b4e7f@mattcorallo.com>
<CAAUaCyj1Yo+CpmwR40U711wknwerYeE_WkLERHuKf3uX-fcQjA@mail.gmail.com>
From: James Hilliard <james.hilliard1@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 26 May 2017 17:30:37 -0400
Message-ID: <CADvTj4o2pFXZFHALfP-dJ10+AQxfFLVuohcpBn-tupf+CHRBYA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jacob Eliosoff <jacob.eliosoff@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT,FREEMAIL_FROM,
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] Barry Silbert segwit agreement
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, 26 May 2017 21:30:39 -0000
Mandatory signalling is the only way to lock in segwit with less than
95% hashpower without a full redeployment(which for a number of
technical reasons isn't feasible until after the existing segwit
deployment expires). There's no reason not to signal BIP141 bit 1
while also signalling bit 4, but you would want to use bit 4 to
coordinate bit 1 mandatory signalling.
It would not be feasible to schedule any HF until one can be
completely sure BIP141 is active(at least not without waiting for the
timeout and doing a redeployment) due to activation/p2p codepath
complexity. This is why the mandatory signalling period is needed.
Since it is likely a HF will take months of development and testing I
see this or something similar as the fastest safe path forward:
1. Use BIP91 or similar to activate BIP141 via mandatory signalling
ASAP(likely using bit 4)
2. Develop HF code based on assumption that BIP141 is active so that
you only have to test the BIP141->HF upgrade/activation codepath.
3. Deploy HF after BIP141 lock in(bit 4 can be reused again here since
this will be after BIP91 expiration)
When rolling out some features it often makes sense to combine them
into a single fork for example BIP's 68, 112, 113 were rolled out at
the same time as are BIP's 141, 143, 144, 145 for segwit, however a HF
has required features that would conflict with with features in the
segwit rollout which is why attempting to simultaneously deploy them
would cause major complexity/testing issues(you would have to deal
with feature conflict resolution for multiple potential activation
scenarios). By doing a staged rollout of segwit and then a HF you get
a single testable upgrade path.
Based on past development experiences I wouldn't expect a 6 month
timeline to be realistic for a properly tested HF, but this proposed
upgrade path should be the fastest available for both SegWit and a HF
regardless.
On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 4:10 PM, Jacob Eliosoff via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> 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
>> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
|
