馃搮 Original date posted:2018-03-30
馃摑 Original message:Yes, in fact, you don't need to lose those bits like bitcoin by
imposing that the version is greater than that. But I guess just doing
the same is simpler.
On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 7:14 AM, Samad Sajanlal
<samad.sajanlal at gmail.com> wrote:
> Excellent - Thanks for your response Jorge. This helps us plan out the
> future upgrades properly.
> Since I see 0.15 and 0.16 use block versions as 0x20000000, whereas the
> current deployed codebase (based on bitcoin 0.9.4) makes versions 0x00000002
> (as seen by a 0.15 client), it appears safe to activate soft forks which
> require a minimum of version 3 and 4 blocks (0x00000003 and 0x00000004,
> respectively). Would you agree?
>
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 7:55 AM, Jorge Tim贸n <jtimon at jtimon.cc> wrote:
>>
>> 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 at 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 at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>> >
>
>
Jorge Tim贸n [ARCHIVE] /
npub1fx鈥l2d8
2023-06-07 18:11:22
in reply to nevent1q鈥dj3
Author Public Key
npub1fx98zxt3lzspjs5f4msr0fxysx5euucm29ghysryju7vpc9j0jzqtcl2d8Published at
2023-06-07 18:11:22Event JSON
{
"id": "dc3830d8153366fd865609e240822d38123cf199e2af314012bb13c60a1926c3",
"pubkey": "498a711971f8a0194289aee037a4c481a99e731b5151724064973cc0e0b27c84",
"created_at": 1686161482,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"ba865719325d6900f772348d6aca5792c57bb532034f54be18251172a9959906",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"b136f156fe03066c06c090025cf91ef4e38afc517ba66272c663b690034e7199",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"2b86083d4ca85ca769e2bf0bf3df55f8baa87c687517e650c46c3bb7cb15abec"
]
],
"content": "馃搮 Original date posted:2018-03-30\n馃摑 Original message:Yes, in fact, you don't need to lose those bits like bitcoin by\nimposing that the version is greater than that. But I guess just doing\nthe same is simpler.\n\nOn Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 7:14 AM, Samad Sajanlal\n\u003csamad.sajanlal at gmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003e Excellent - Thanks for your response Jorge. This helps us plan out the\n\u003e future upgrades properly.\n\u003e Since I see 0.15 and 0.16 use block versions as 0x20000000, whereas the\n\u003e current deployed codebase (based on bitcoin 0.9.4) makes versions 0x00000002\n\u003e (as seen by a 0.15 client), it appears safe to activate soft forks which\n\u003e require a minimum of version 3 and 4 blocks (0x00000003 and 0x00000004,\n\u003e respectively). Would you agree?\n\u003e\n\u003e On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 7:55 AM, Jorge Tim贸n \u003cjtimon at jtimon.cc\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e Yes, you can activate softforks at a given height.\n\u003e\u003e I don't see any reason why you couldn't rebase to 0.16 directly.\n\u003e\u003e The block version bumping was a mistake in bip34, you don't really\n\u003e\u003e need to bump the version number. In any case, I would recommend\n\u003e\u003e reading bip34 and what it activates in the code. IIRC the last thing\n\u003e\u003e was bip65.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 11:04 PM, Samad Sajanlal via bitcoin-dev\n\u003e\u003e \u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\u003e \u003e Is it possible to activate soft forks such as BIP65 and BIP66 without\n\u003e\u003e \u003e prior\n\u003e\u003e \u003e signaling from miners? I noticed in chainparams.cpp that there are block\n\u003e\u003e \u003e heights where the enforcement begins.\n\u003e\u003e \u003e\n\u003e\u003e \u003e I understand this is already active on bitcoin. I'm working on a project\n\u003e\u003e \u003e that is a clone of a clone of bitcoin, and we currently do not have\n\u003e\u003e \u003e BIP65 or\n\u003e\u003e \u003e BIP66 enforced - no signaling of these soft forks either (most of the\n\u003e\u003e \u003e network is on a source code fork of bitcoin 0.9). This project does not\n\u003e\u003e \u003e and\n\u003e\u003e \u003e never intends to attempt to replace bitcoin - we know that without\n\u003e\u003e \u003e bitcoin\n\u003e\u003e \u003e our project could never exist, so we owe a great deal of gratitude to\n\u003e\u003e \u003e the\n\u003e\u003e \u003e bitcoin developers.\n\u003e\u003e \u003e\n\u003e\u003e \u003e If the entire network upgrades to the correct version of the software\n\u003e\u003e \u003e (based\n\u003e\u003e \u003e on bitcoin 0.15), which includes the block height that has enforcement,\n\u003e\u003e \u003e can\n\u003e\u003e \u003e we simply skip over the signaling and go straight into\n\u003e\u003e \u003e activation/enforcement?\n\u003e\u003e \u003e\n\u003e\u003e \u003e At this time we are lucky that our network is very small, so it is\n\u003e\u003e \u003e reasonable to assume that the whole network will upgrade their clients\n\u003e\u003e \u003e within a short window (~2 weeks). We would schedule the activation ~2\n\u003e\u003e \u003e months\n\u003e\u003e \u003e out from when the client is released, just to ensure everyone has time\n\u003e\u003e \u003e to\n\u003e\u003e \u003e upgrade.\n\u003e\u003e \u003e\n\u003e\u003e \u003e We have been stuck on the 0.9 code branch and my goal is to bring it up\n\u003e\u003e \u003e to\n\u003e\u003e \u003e 0.15 at least, so that we can implement Segwit and other key features\n\u003e\u003e \u003e that\n\u003e\u003e \u003e bitcoin has introduced. The 0.15 client currently works with regards to\n\u003e\u003e \u003e sending and receiving transactions but the soft forks are not active. I\n\u003e\u003e \u003e understand that activating them will segregate the 0.15 clients onto\n\u003e\u003e \u003e their\n\u003e\u003e \u003e own fork, which is why I'd like to understand the repercussions of doing\n\u003e\u003e \u003e it\n\u003e\u003e \u003e without any signaling beforehand. I also would prefer not to have to\n\u003e\u003e \u003e make\n\u003e\u003e \u003e intermediate releases such as 0.10, 0.11.. etc to get the soft forks\n\u003e\u003e \u003e activated.\n\u003e\u003e \u003e\n\u003e\u003e \u003e Another related question - does the block version get bumped up\n\u003e\u003e \u003e automatically at the time that a soft fork activates, or is there\n\u003e\u003e \u003e additional\n\u003e\u003e \u003e stuff that I need to do within the code to ensure it bumps up at the\n\u003e\u003e \u003e same\n\u003e\u003e \u003e time? From what I saw in the code it appears that it will bump up\n\u003e\u003e \u003e automatically, but I would like some confirmation on that.\n\u003e\u003e \u003e\n\u003e\u003e \u003e Regards,\n\u003e\u003e \u003e Samad\n\u003e\u003e \u003e\n\u003e\u003e \u003e\n\u003e\u003e \u003e\n\u003e\u003e \u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e\u003e \u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e\u003e \u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e\u003e \u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e\u003e \u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e",
"sig": "9e1deb3debba7a8442c01b4fbf7882a663d99a8e51c90002f2fc04397dd8afe3be9cd6d79a9e7f2d5b1d03a835a678f98b58d1b905b8b91580515634baf54e9a"
}