📅 Original date posted:2017-05-28
📝 Original message:On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 3:51 PM, Tom Zander via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On Saturday, 27 May 2017 01:09:10 CEST James Hilliard wrote:
>> > why?
>>
>> the main
>> issue is due to 0.13.1+ having many segwit related features active
>> already, including all the P2P components, the new network service
>> flag, the witness-tx and block messages, compact blocks v2 and
>> preferential peering.
>
> Hmm, the flags are identical in 0.13 and 0.14 clients.
>
> Either way, this is rather trivial to solve. If bugs in older clients mean
> they can’t operate properly when SW is activated (via bit 4) but they don’t
> know its activated (since they only look at bit1), then just ban them when
> they misbehave.
> And tell people to upgrade to a version where SegWit is less buggy.
That would partition off those clients, which is not something we
would want to happen.
>
>> You would have to then have multiple activation
>> codepaths to test for such as BIP141(active)->HF BIP141(inactive)->HF
>> etc. By doing BIP141 first you then only have the BIP141(active)->HF
>> activation codepath to test for, and you also can't be sure you can
>> rely on BIP141(inactive)->HF activation codepath being the only one
>> until segwit activation expires.
>
> Heh, well, this is rather simple to solve by not having all those activation
> codepaths and just picking **one**.
This isn't possible until either BIP141 segwit is active or BIP141
segwit has expired.
>
> You can safely replace the bit1 activation code with a bit4 activation
> logic, which is based on 80% and has no end-date.
> We both know that the bip9 (bit1) based activation will not trigger before
> the expiration date anyway.
We don't know that since bip9 bit1 only needs 55% hashpower to be
triggered(see BIP91 activation method for how this can be done)
>
> These worries are rather trivial to solve if you do a little bit of proper
> architecture of the solution. This honestly can’t be a reason for saying NO
> to the majority of the mining hash power giving you a break and offering a
> better SegWit activation.
BIP91 activation is clearly superior than trying to fully redeploy, it
is far simpler and can be done almost immediately with only miners
needing to upgrade.
>
> --
> Tom Zander
> Blog: https://zander.github.io
> Vlog: https://vimeo.com/channels/tomscryptochannel
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
James Hilliard [ARCHIVE] /
npub10r…kgk2d
2023-06-07 18:01:25
in reply to nevent1q…3fpw
Author Public Key
npub10r9d6edmnrljk59wsf06zqp494l3qtjpa3w245hy6t5euqxlzw2qdkgk2dPublished at
2023-06-07 18:01:25Event JSON
{
"id": "17d169b5ca2c02b714a16840316cf0fbed820f8ff04b872feec0f4fafbfdcebb",
"pubkey": "78cadd65bb98ff2b50ae825fa100352d7f102e41ec5caad2e4d2e99e00df1394",
"created_at": 1686160885,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"5f4e5578a00516f73144a00c0c15e1afca8ff6c2e2a719034eb27cdcba62a8d3",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"2334a0ea47b165ce0578efb3b8db1a97dc973a7a0013668447acea571a1d7323",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"dcb947d818dbfd7cf0baf26c0d5eb606b5a32336c5483fb53e05146315833ca7"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2017-05-28\n📝 Original message:On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 3:51 PM, Tom Zander via bitcoin-dev\n\u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e On Saturday, 27 May 2017 01:09:10 CEST James Hilliard wrote:\n\u003e\u003e \u003e why?\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e the main\n\u003e\u003e issue is due to 0.13.1+ having many segwit related features active\n\u003e\u003e already, including all the P2P components, the new network service\n\u003e\u003e flag, the witness-tx and block messages, compact blocks v2 and\n\u003e\u003e preferential peering.\n\u003e\n\u003e Hmm, the flags are identical in 0.13 and 0.14 clients.\n\u003e\n\u003e Either way, this is rather trivial to solve. If bugs in older clients mean\n\u003e they can’t operate properly when SW is activated (via bit 4) but they don’t\n\u003e know its activated (since they only look at bit1), then just ban them when\n\u003e they misbehave.\n\u003e And tell people to upgrade to a version where SegWit is less buggy.\nThat would partition off those clients, which is not something we\nwould want to happen.\n\u003e\n\u003e\u003e You would have to then have multiple activation\n\u003e\u003e codepaths to test for such as BIP141(active)-\u003eHF BIP141(inactive)-\u003eHF\n\u003e\u003e etc. By doing BIP141 first you then only have the BIP141(active)-\u003eHF\n\u003e\u003e activation codepath to test for, and you also can't be sure you can\n\u003e\u003e rely on BIP141(inactive)-\u003eHF activation codepath being the only one\n\u003e\u003e until segwit activation expires.\n\u003e\n\u003e Heh, well, this is rather simple to solve by not having all those activation\n\u003e codepaths and just picking **one**.\nThis isn't possible until either BIP141 segwit is active or BIP141\nsegwit has expired.\n\u003e\n\u003e You can safely replace the bit1 activation code with a bit4 activation\n\u003e logic, which is based on 80% and has no end-date.\n\u003e We both know that the bip9 (bit1) based activation will not trigger before\n\u003e the expiration date anyway.\nWe don't know that since bip9 bit1 only needs 55% hashpower to be\ntriggered(see BIP91 activation method for how this can be done)\n\u003e\n\u003e These worries are rather trivial to solve if you do a little bit of proper\n\u003e architecture of the solution. This honestly can’t be a reason for saying NO\n\u003e to the majority of the mining hash power giving you a break and offering a\n\u003e better SegWit activation.\nBIP91 activation is clearly superior than trying to fully redeploy, it\nis far simpler and can be done almost immediately with only miners\nneeding to upgrade.\n\u003e\n\u003e --\n\u003e Tom Zander\n\u003e Blog: https://zander.github.io\n\u003e Vlog: https://vimeo.com/channels/tomscryptochannel\n\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev",
"sig": "d2ae2c406e11203d5c61ca950c70e4045620e703d757954ec859843faa98f954ad7659209f1f1f6d03b38b6421c09ac4fa09b72b1dd41782924ab4458b36339f"
}