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
|
Return-Path: <btcdrak@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9E42C170C
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 27 Sep 2015 20:41:23 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-wi0-f179.google.com (mail-wi0-f179.google.com
[209.85.212.179])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 154F326C
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 27 Sep 2015 20:41:23 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by wicfx3 with SMTP id fx3so76707377wic.0
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 27 Sep 2015 13:41:21 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to
:cc:content-type;
bh=w1TGsQjFU7jN72Z88ChqAvDSgsuV6w9jBTy1n+cMaXQ=;
b=vLhueaz6Pe/BVhiuJHc4X8Igs0EcZwNW2bhon7fiJhL+AtDulAq4nmEQMa9Dj8gpsz
w/v6gbbF7Xpy/ELXl7RvVieaLnZKKy3IADe3LNSu3sbHCdnBD4WBtZVf7n4ADcW/CZQz
CfFMWalhNJ8Q00I+XaPaEzwS/0UydUvrgD65DHhEpp5BitwUgt7GqHetJpLumioCTBUe
iZ4fjd2Fr0FnuYZc8CkVRAGnjOKhjcC2BbZsXBelqOpnwecbXijaSwWzMOX3sNXZha14
L9N12ia+EGKW6KhLci+/6D0OsNsamEFpt3PjSJJUNHG6bR3BguAFhq+1nbw1V0//VSd+
j8lA==
X-Received: by 10.180.206.45 with SMTP id ll13mr14459453wic.6.1443386481720;
Sun, 27 Sep 2015 13:41:21 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.28.21.200 with HTTP; Sun, 27 Sep 2015 13:41:02 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20150927185031.GA20599@savin.petertodd.org>
References: <20150927185031.GA20599@savin.petertodd.org>
From: Btc Drak <btcdrak@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2015 21:41:02 +0100
Message-ID: <CADJgMztehvA-6wzd4_+k2enJmNZyK1ry+NOKb_7kGPD5U4c9AQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c2382c8444ed0520c09af2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, HK_RANDOM_ENVFROM,
HK_RANDOM_FROM,
HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW 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] Let's deploy BIP65 CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY!
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Development 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, 27 Sep 2015 20:41:23 -0000
--001a11c2382c8444ed0520c09af2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 7:50 PM, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> 10) Waiting for nVersion bits and CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY will significantly
> delay deployment of CLTV
>
> It's been proposed multiple times that we wait until we can do a single
> soft-fork with CSV using the nVersion bits mechanism.
>
> nVersion bits doesn't even have an implementation yet, nor has solid
> consensus been reached on the exact semantics of how nVersion bits
> should work.
Small correction, the suggestion is to aim to roll out CLTV+CSV together by
0.12 release, using IsSuperMajority() (or versionbits if it is ready by
then). If CSV is not ready by then, we'd just roll out CLTV.
However, the CSV related pull requests are ready for final review and if
that can happen soon I don't see why we wouldn't roll CLTV+CSV out together
before 0.12. A considerable amount of time, discussion and iterations have
occurred for the related PRs and I believe they are at the point of
consensus modulo final review before merging.
References:
Mempool-only sequence number constraint verification
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/6312
Mempool-only CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/6564
Mempool-only Median time-past as endpoint for lock-time calculations
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/6566
--001a11c2382c8444ed0520c09af2
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On S=
un, Sep 27, 2015 at 7:50 PM, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev <span dir=3D"ltr">&=
lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blan=
k">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquo=
te class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-widt=
h:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-le=
ft:1ex">10) Waiting for nVersion bits and CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY will signific=
antly<br>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 delay deployment of CLTV<br>
<br>
It's been proposed multiple times that we wait until we can do a single=
<br>
soft-fork with CSV using the nVersion bits mechanism.<br>
<br>
nVersion bits doesn't even have an implementation yet, nor has solid<br=
>
consensus been reached on the exact semantics of how nVersion bits<br>
should work.</blockquote><div><br></div><div>Small correction, the suggesti=
on is to aim to roll out CLTV+CSV together by 0.12 release, using IsSuperMa=
jority() (or versionbits if it is ready by then). If CSV is not ready by th=
en, we'd just roll out CLTV.</div><div><br></div><div>However, the CSV =
related pull requests are ready for final review and if that can happen soo=
n I don't see why we wouldn't roll CLTV+CSV out together before 0.1=
2. A considerable amount of time, discussion and iterations have occurred f=
or the related PRs and I believe they are at the point of consensus modulo =
final review before merging.</div><div><br></div><div>References:=C2=A0</di=
v><div><br></div><div><div style=3D"font-size:12.8px">Mempool-only sequence=
number constraint verification</div><div style=3D"font-size:12.8px"><a hre=
f=3D"https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/6312" target=3D"_blank">https:=
//github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/6312</a></div><div style=3D"font-size:12.=
8px"><br></div><div style=3D"font-size:12.8px">Mempool-only CHECKSEQUENCEVE=
RIFY</div><div style=3D"font-size:12.8px"><a href=3D"https://github.com/bit=
coin/bitcoin/pull/6564" target=3D"_blank">https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoi=
n/pull/6564</a></div><div style=3D"font-size:12.8px"><br></div><div style=
=3D"font-size:12.8px">Mempool-only Median time-past as endpoint for lock-ti=
me calculations</div><div style=3D"font-size:12.8px"><a href=3D"https://git=
hub.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/6566" target=3D"_blank">https://github.com/bit=
coin/bitcoin/pull/6566</a></div></div><div><br></div></div></div></div>
--001a11c2382c8444ed0520c09af2--
|
