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
|
Return-Path: <tomz@freedommail.ch>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CB92FB6C
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 4 Apr 2017 11:16:15 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mx-out02.mykolab.com (mx.kolabnow.com [95.128.36.1])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A93E01AA
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 4 Apr 2017 11:16:14 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at kolabnow.com
X-Spam-Score: -2.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW
autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
Received: from mx03.mykolab.com (mx03.mykolab.com [10.20.7.101])
by mx-out02.mykolab.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CA2FD617C2;
Tue, 4 Apr 2017 13:16:10 +0200 (CEST)
From: Tom Zander <tomz@freedommail.ch>
To: "bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org"
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2017 13:16:08 +0200
Message-ID: <4095148.TDyWagoPAR@strawberry>
In-Reply-To: <PU5yHaeZtxR5ManpM0q7ZIN1pElEorBfO09u7ZIC-h81mQizYCZ5qNv89Tb2ZLNHbCktmV65q2Xkm1K3UckvVZLOWBMW7-riWYRY4HtFe1A=@protonmail.com>
References: <PU5yHaeZtxR5ManpM0q7ZIN1pElEorBfO09u7ZIC-h81mQizYCZ5qNv89Tb2ZLNHbCktmV65q2Xkm1K3UckvVZLOWBMW7-riWYRY4HtFe1A=@protonmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 04 Apr 2017 11:16:53 +0000
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP proposal: Generalized version bits voting
(bip-genvbvoting)
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, 04 Apr 2017 11:16:15 -0000
On Monday, 3 April 2017 11:06:02 CEST Sancho Panza wrote:
> =3D=3DSpecification=3D=3D
>=20
> To be elaborated.
Please do elaborate :)
The meat of the proposal is missing.
=20
> It is thought that only cosmetic changes are needed to generalize from
> only soft forks to 'soft or hard forks', and to add the additional
> per-bit parameters 'threshold' and 'windowsize'
I agree that the type of forks are rather irrelevant to the voting=20
mechanism. As we remember that BIP109 used a voting bit too.
The per-bit (lets call that per-proposal) parameter threshold and windowsiz=
e=20
are a different matter though, based on the next paragraph you wrote;
> The design of the state machine is envisioned to remain unchanged.
The entire point of BIP9 is to allow nodes that do not know about an upgrad=
e=20
to still have a functional state machine. But I don=E2=80=99t see how you c=
an have a=20
state machine if the two basic variables that drive it are not specified.
Now, to be clear, I am a big fan of making the window size and the threshol=
d=20
more flexible.
But in my opinion we would not be able to have a state machine without thos=
e=20
variables in the actual BIP because old nodes would miss the data to=20
transition to certain states.
Maybe an idea; we have 30 bits. 2 currently in use (although we could reuse=
=20
the CSV one). Maybe we can come up with 3 default sets of properties and=20
when a proposal starts to use bit 11 it behaves differently than if it uses=
=20
22.
=2D-=20
Tom Zander
Blog: https://zander.github.io
Vlog: https://vimeo.com/channels/tomscryptochannel
|
