📅 Original date posted:2017-05-26
📝 Original message:Forgive me if this is a dumb question. Suppose that rather than directly
activating segwit, the Silbert/NYC Segwit2MB proposal's lock-in just
triggered BIP141 signaling (plus later HF). Would that avoid
incompatibility with existing BIP141 nodes, and get segwit activated
sooner? Eg:
- Bit 4 (or bit 5 or whatever, now that BIP91 uses 4) signals support for
"segwit now, HF (TBD) at scheduled date (Nov 23?)"
- If bit 4 support reaches 80%, it locks in two things: the scheduled HF
(conditional on segwit), and *immediately* turning on bit 1 (BIP141 support)
I realize this would still leave problems like the aggressive HF schedule,
possible chain split at the HF date between Segwit2MB nodes and any
remaining BIP141 nodes, etc. My focus here is how incompatibility with
existing nodes could be minimized.
(BIP91 could also be used if BIP141 support still fell short of 95%. But
if Segwit2MB support reaches 80%, it seems likely that an additional 15%
will support BIP141-without-HF.)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20170526/d6a31f4d/attachment.html>;
Jacob Eliosoff [ARCHIVE] /
npub1ml…4yf8d
2023-06-07 18:01:23
in reply to nevent1q…vvdj
Author Public Key
npub1mlpmsc5sm93tw2fp2dhhuwmxcqm59wz6hjg5g3afq5rucfll3f9sh4yf8dPublished at
2023-06-07 18:01:23Event JSON
{
"id": "084b59851b50e853fdad97be5115e46e10b7f560d65c5d958900f864c66878d9",
"pubkey": "dfc3b86290d962b72921536f7e3b66c03742b85abc914447a90507cc27ff8a4b",
"created_at": 1686160883,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"5f4e5578a00516f73144a00c0c15e1afca8ff6c2e2a719034eb27cdcba62a8d3",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"ee951fd04ff557da26a6ffe932aa38252b0a4e9dd990dbcfa41312165559f336",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"d095b8308db6dba342441a113eb30e1fc39625c0f54d4eb0c3b214d083d846a5"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2017-05-26\n📝 Original message:Forgive me if this is a dumb question. Suppose that rather than directly\nactivating segwit, the Silbert/NYC Segwit2MB proposal's lock-in just\ntriggered BIP141 signaling (plus later HF). Would that avoid\nincompatibility with existing BIP141 nodes, and get segwit activated\nsooner? Eg:\n\n- Bit 4 (or bit 5 or whatever, now that BIP91 uses 4) signals support for\n\"segwit now, HF (TBD) at scheduled date (Nov 23?)\"\n- If bit 4 support reaches 80%, it locks in two things: the scheduled HF\n(conditional on segwit), and *immediately* turning on bit 1 (BIP141 support)\n\nI realize this would still leave problems like the aggressive HF schedule,\npossible chain split at the HF date between Segwit2MB nodes and any\nremaining BIP141 nodes, etc. My focus here is how incompatibility with\nexisting nodes could be minimized.\n\n(BIP91 could also be used if BIP141 support still fell short of 95%. But\nif Segwit2MB support reaches 80%, it seems likely that an additional 15%\nwill support BIP141-without-HF.)\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20170526/d6a31f4d/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "89e4918579983e4bd43ddbab7f57bf58a116667f5c33034e580ddd2d625700060adfbc77bdf94fd40f05237ddc1cbd9b38c64b39ffedecae65d6ee5b681dfeba"
}