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
|
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 65E4211DF
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 28 Mar 2018 12:55:28 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-vk0-f49.google.com (mail-vk0-f49.google.com
[209.85.213.49])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CACF5613
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 28 Mar 2018 12:55:27 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-vk0-f49.google.com with SMTP id q198so1309583vke.3
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 28 Mar 2018 05:55:27 -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;
bh=eovIoKsLh+X8F80ZqvoQ/K6quxM5fHADO6wFiNQ33Ns=;
b=LQH3mNk5M1maxNhEgxrPyEcXu411HXJrD267A4tPmovzuWIo6gxeZAr1sDIBfnXZ5I
owOdpNUFwlEEm+7ouaGIHDr0JNWpes+5RvwIhIaaiGXaBDp6w8w+BNafwrDEPqqxdq0D
ykGwN5cyxWYPCEV+RgM/+F2epDYqhibxKXMMHhgvX/ggujzYyzojW3NUU902CceKs8zv
KJ2TPPqAH4w4+JAoVWEPyHMGSEk3MQIfWHXzgIAx4lDAPKqsZ+2t5RUPc7ezwkS0mLuP
bSCAzOWeMCSzZlkG5MyJe333MRo6syu/08w40tXHL/YbU5kSCN2YJaj3s0yZwxlEkYWS
NdWw==
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;
bh=eovIoKsLh+X8F80ZqvoQ/K6quxM5fHADO6wFiNQ33Ns=;
b=q2e7fgWNJuleVV40rJ+/IyjkjtENP6/Y/32XZtZQT2JW5WIFcPqEsxHw0Z3uibVg8g
98Ltk+8Ea6Uajp+EYFlokKXI+GeZc/IE343lPMknKL+cVyhUCJCMbMZGQ1aUtO8mhGML
xPIuxKvtZkqgXo2YqFrGJ8gE9xgdfUDvT+3AXVW9PY4RQtkQRBhPfI68IIbAmqy2ySbm
C99yq/CNVmNQUo12kqk58wI+WgNaHnBq6o1csx2LBRkcu31e/QlduRgVVyn4XY0B2Vka
eDkK5xPo4n/mVCxGf38kKrX4J5szF2CO76Kqmj6HN5XKrzgd/B4p0uZVwgQyRxZLDI4x
UKlQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AElRT7E31McLegdpIjz7pXFhZpny1rRNDZOsLDJrnlreIG0RHg13Stqe
1bBWtef7X3mRlBSZitEW756OcKrIB8gAx3ZGBEWzxQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AIpwx49HtnaNqK4Ad7ZT2F12rCHmsEmXc08Mn40Yj2I12LzD2bmkUcM3j8YsSATL9vNbT8Z9dmbmqsfF9GoC4TKt1iQ=
X-Received: by 10.31.194.3 with SMTP id s3mr2208486vkf.118.1522241726845; Wed,
28 Mar 2018 05:55:26 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.31.168.211 with HTTP; Wed, 28 Mar 2018 05:55:26 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAAQZUuDEJeMFTxxJcgUEmTUQbxM_ZWkBD1k+UOvafsqbqj++Jg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAQZUuDEJeMFTxxJcgUEmTUQbxM_ZWkBD1k+UOvafsqbqj++Jg@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 14:55:26 +0200
Message-ID: <CABm2gDq2pa_8T7Xhniuyh86eTi=PmSA_t=2Z0nYp1LhN=zc_NA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Samad Sajanlal <samad.sajanlal@gmail.com>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
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
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: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 12:55:28 -0000
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 block
> heights where the enforcement begins.
>
> I understand this is already active on bitcoin. I'm working on a project
> 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 not 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 up 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 to
> 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 doing 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
>
|
