📅 Original date posted:2017-06-11
📝 Original message:This[1] idea from April would assist in a BIP149-like segwit
activation on November 16th.
Its goal is to be incredibly easy to test and deploy, right now, even
before a decision on revisions to BIP149 is made, and well before such
"BIP149ish" testing is itself complete.
UASFs don't need time for most legacy nodes to upgrade - that's the
point of a soft fork. UASFs simply need to have inevitability,
which is provided by some nodes more than others. But for the node
less instrumental in that inevitability, and more relaxed about
scheduling upgrade work, being moved to a miner-protected consensus
ruleset is not as desirable a position as the opportunity to
participate fully. As a courtesy, the plan for soft forks has
always been to allow legacy nodes time to upgrade to full
participation. How much time should rollouts allow for this
courtesy?
Extended BIP9 activation of segwit (for legacy nodes) separates
concerns between intending to activate segwit and its method of
deployment, allowing "semi-legacy" nodes that have upgraded to
include this proposal to participate immediately in a successful
segwit activation, without needing any courtesy time to upgrade to
the particular deployment logic.
Code for deployment is included in the original email[1]. There's
nothing missing from the logic shown. The whole intent of the
proposal is that other deployment specifics are left to be defined
by future proposals. In the same block that THRESHOLD_ACTIVE is
reached for segwit, require Consensus::DEPLOYMENT_SEGWIT_ALT1 to
also reach THRESHOLD_ACTIVE, and the burden of the future proposal
is fulfilled.
If the idea proves broken or of no benefit, when actually
implementing and testing future deployments, then we can avoid using
DEPLOYMENT_SEGWIT_ALT1 until it expires, and zero nodes get hurt.
Let's look at how this affects options for how to deploy segwit...
/ BIP149ish UASF, without this proposal /
roadmap:
- BIP149ish debated (handles BIP141 success, unlike BIP149)
- BIP149ish tested
- BIP149ish courtesy timeout debated
- BIP148 fails
- BIP149ish released
- BIP141 fails
- BIP149ish courtesy timeout expires
- BIP149ish activates
- segwit activates
- legacy nodes must upgrade before recognizing BIP149 activation
If we try to restrict ourselves to only the original service bit, we
see a tension between activating soon and leaving legacy nodes on a
miner-protected consensus. We also see a tension between *planning*
how long it will take to debate and test UASF logic, and setting
expectations for when a reasonable activation date is.
These seemingly small tensions complicate the solution, and push it
out of developer's visions of what is feasible. It's not clear how
soon it can happen, so it doesn't get started in an urgent manner.
It doesn't get started in an urgent manner, so it's not clear how
soon it can happen.
/ BIP149ish UASF, with this proposal /
roadmap:
- this proposal debated
- this proposal tested
- this proposal released (courtesy begins)
- BIP149ish debated (handles BIP141 success, unlike BIP149)
- BIP149ish tested
- BIP148 fails
- BIP149ish released
- BIP141 fails
- BIP149ish activates
- segwit activates
- semi-legacy nodes *immediately* use segwit, via this proposal
We can remove the courtesy timeout problem, because the courtesy
begins as soon as this proposal goes live. This simplifies debate on
how BIP149ish should deploy, and helps make reasonable a much quicker
segwit activation should BIP141 fail.
With a clear route to quick activation for semi-legacy nodes, the
UASF can be planned for activation in as short a window as the key
nodes can upgrade. Not even all the key nodes need to upgrade: it's
still a soft fork, and UASFs simply need to have inevitability.
These differences can help us aim for activating segwit on November
16th, if BIP141 and BIP148 do not succeed earlier. Since BIP149 as
originally conceived is slow as molasses, BIP149ish still needs
debate, BIP141 has steadfast enemies, and the community is slow to
adapt to BIP148's complicated commitment requirements, it is prudent
to take this intermediate step allowing quicker BIP149ish activation.
[1] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-April/014160.html
Ryan Grant [ARCHIVE] /
npub19a…6mwcl
2023-06-07 18:03:06
in reply to nevent1q…rhtm
Author Public Key
npub19a2m7qm80t7mzhgqfgunswhm5c3q4fkqt89057ugy7u8jdxncf2q06mwclPublished at
2023-06-07 18:03:06Event JSON
{
"id": "a8a50fce674c8eedd81f425023bb2dd4d09bb45d3da4375486c8aba8124a834d",
"pubkey": "2f55bf03677afdb15d004a39383afba6220aa6c059cafa7b8827b87934d3c254",
"created_at": 1686160986,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"fb6102a0ed3ae0e39c257febdabe84e9bd0a34387210b3c2655d923683a81cdb",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"a23dbf6c6cc83e14cc3df4e56cc71845f611908084cfe620e83e40c06ccdd3d0"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2017-06-11\n📝 Original message:This[1] idea from April would assist in a BIP149-like segwit\nactivation on November 16th.\n\nIts goal is to be incredibly easy to test and deploy, right now, even\nbefore a decision on revisions to BIP149 is made, and well before such\n\"BIP149ish\" testing is itself complete.\n\nUASFs don't need time for most legacy nodes to upgrade - that's the\npoint of a soft fork. UASFs simply need to have inevitability,\nwhich is provided by some nodes more than others. But for the node\nless instrumental in that inevitability, and more relaxed about\nscheduling upgrade work, being moved to a miner-protected consensus\nruleset is not as desirable a position as the opportunity to\nparticipate fully. As a courtesy, the plan for soft forks has\nalways been to allow legacy nodes time to upgrade to full\nparticipation. How much time should rollouts allow for this\ncourtesy?\n\nExtended BIP9 activation of segwit (for legacy nodes) separates\nconcerns between intending to activate segwit and its method of\ndeployment, allowing \"semi-legacy\" nodes that have upgraded to\ninclude this proposal to participate immediately in a successful\nsegwit activation, without needing any courtesy time to upgrade to\nthe particular deployment logic.\n\nCode for deployment is included in the original email[1]. There's\nnothing missing from the logic shown. The whole intent of the\nproposal is that other deployment specifics are left to be defined\nby future proposals. In the same block that THRESHOLD_ACTIVE is\nreached for segwit, require Consensus::DEPLOYMENT_SEGWIT_ALT1 to\nalso reach THRESHOLD_ACTIVE, and the burden of the future proposal\nis fulfilled.\n\nIf the idea proves broken or of no benefit, when actually\nimplementing and testing future deployments, then we can avoid using\nDEPLOYMENT_SEGWIT_ALT1 until it expires, and zero nodes get hurt.\n\nLet's look at how this affects options for how to deploy segwit...\n\n/ BIP149ish UASF, without this proposal /\n\nroadmap:\n - BIP149ish debated (handles BIP141 success, unlike BIP149)\n - BIP149ish tested\n - BIP149ish courtesy timeout debated\n - BIP148 fails\n - BIP149ish released\n - BIP141 fails\n - BIP149ish courtesy timeout expires\n - BIP149ish activates\n - segwit activates\n - legacy nodes must upgrade before recognizing BIP149 activation\n\nIf we try to restrict ourselves to only the original service bit, we\nsee a tension between activating soon and leaving legacy nodes on a\nminer-protected consensus. We also see a tension between *planning*\nhow long it will take to debate and test UASF logic, and setting\nexpectations for when a reasonable activation date is.\n\nThese seemingly small tensions complicate the solution, and push it\nout of developer's visions of what is feasible. It's not clear how\nsoon it can happen, so it doesn't get started in an urgent manner.\nIt doesn't get started in an urgent manner, so it's not clear how\nsoon it can happen.\n\n/ BIP149ish UASF, with this proposal /\n\nroadmap:\n - this proposal debated\n - this proposal tested\n - this proposal released (courtesy begins)\n - BIP149ish debated (handles BIP141 success, unlike BIP149)\n - BIP149ish tested\n - BIP148 fails\n - BIP149ish released\n - BIP141 fails\n - BIP149ish activates\n - segwit activates\n - semi-legacy nodes *immediately* use segwit, via this proposal\n\nWe can remove the courtesy timeout problem, because the courtesy\nbegins as soon as this proposal goes live. This simplifies debate on\nhow BIP149ish should deploy, and helps make reasonable a much quicker\nsegwit activation should BIP141 fail.\n\nWith a clear route to quick activation for semi-legacy nodes, the\nUASF can be planned for activation in as short a window as the key\nnodes can upgrade. Not even all the key nodes need to upgrade: it's\nstill a soft fork, and UASFs simply need to have inevitability.\n\nThese differences can help us aim for activating segwit on November\n16th, if BIP141 and BIP148 do not succeed earlier. Since BIP149 as\noriginally conceived is slow as molasses, BIP149ish still needs\ndebate, BIP141 has steadfast enemies, and the community is slow to\nadapt to BIP148's complicated commitment requirements, it is prudent\nto take this intermediate step allowing quicker BIP149ish activation.\n\n[1] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-April/014160.html",
"sig": "3bc60b240d64e603e919520351ec04c2bebc461f8b9f3f6840892ef0566454e8ed487f76272005b555b45fe09807f1e6cf1ec7ced1d23a1f92cc590adc95dec3"
}