📅 Original date posted:2017-03-13
📝 Original message:From: luke at dashjr.org
On Sunday, March 12, 2017 3:50:27 PM shaolinfry via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> // mandatory segwit activation between Oct 1st 2017 and Nov 15th 2017
> inclusive if (pindex->GetMedianTimePast() >= 1538352000 &&
> pindex->GetMedianTimePast() <= 1510704000 &&
> !IsWitnessEnabled(pindex->pprev, chainparams.GetConsensus())) {
> if (!((pindex->nVersion & VERSIONBITS_TOP_MASK) ==
> VERSIONBITS_TOP_BITS) && (pindex->nVersion & VersionBitsMask(params,
> Consensus::DEPLOYMENT_SEGWIT)) != 0) {
> return state.DoS(2, error("ConnectBlock(): relayed block must
> signal for segwit, please upgrade"), REJECT_INVALID,
> "bad-no-segwit");
> }
> }
I don't think this is actually BIP 9 compatible. Once activated, the bit loses
its meaning and should not be set. So you need to check that it hasn't locked-
in already...
I believe that is handled.
time >= 1506816000 && time <= 1510704000 && !IsWitnessEnabled()
Signalling is only required from October 1st until the BIP9 timeout, or, until segwit is activated. The bit becomes free after activation/timeout as per BIP9. Also, the default behaviour of BIP9 in Bitcoin Core is to signal through the LOCKED_IN period - it would be trivial to add a condition to not require mandatory signalling during LOCKED_IN but since miners signal by default during this period, I figured I would leave it.
I thought about 5% tolerance. but I don't think it makes sense since miners will already have plenty of warning this is coming up and the intent of the mandatory signalling period is quite clear. It also seems a bit weird to say "it's mandatory but not for 5%". If miners are required to signal, they need to signal. It also adds unnecessary complexity to an otherwise simple patch.
That said, I have no strong feelings either way on both counts, but I chose to present the simplest option first.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20170313/236ddda6/attachment-0001.html>;
shaolinfry [ARCHIVE] /
npub12y…vwd8g
2023-06-07 17:57:14
in reply to nevent1q…awda
Author Public Key
npub12ykxgdg6sh5ny0p54ufmfh70xgrptwktpyfj4ek6nnn8rdu59qjscvwd8gPublished at
2023-06-07 17:57:14Event JSON
{
"id": "6780534242e211c08a870265dbde5f0424916856399dffa2127f394185e25908",
"pubkey": "512c64351a85e9323c34af13b4dfcf320615bacb09132ae6da9ce671b7942825",
"created_at": 1686160634,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"c85e331219b41163c53d11241cf7a40c8747f1688f2c56a907ca61b00451e77b",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"7a129852bcbff5c83b40d8b2461ab6c5557841563ef461e7cabbed4a1daff1ae",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"5a6d1f44482b67b5b0d30cc1e829b66a251f0dc99448377dbe3c5e0faf6c3803"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2017-03-13\n📝 Original message:From: luke at dashjr.org\nOn Sunday, March 12, 2017 3:50:27 PM shaolinfry via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e // mandatory segwit activation between Oct 1st 2017 and Nov 15th 2017\n\u003e inclusive if (pindex-\u003eGetMedianTimePast() \u003e= 1538352000 \u0026\u0026\n\u003e pindex-\u003eGetMedianTimePast() \u003c= 1510704000 \u0026\u0026\n\u003e !IsWitnessEnabled(pindex-\u003epprev, chainparams.GetConsensus())) {\n\u003e if (!((pindex-\u003enVersion \u0026 VERSIONBITS_TOP_MASK) ==\n\u003e VERSIONBITS_TOP_BITS) \u0026\u0026 (pindex-\u003enVersion \u0026 VersionBitsMask(params,\n\u003e Consensus::DEPLOYMENT_SEGWIT)) != 0) {\n\u003e return state.DoS(2, error(\"ConnectBlock(): relayed block must\n\u003e signal for segwit, please upgrade\"), REJECT_INVALID,\n\u003e \"bad-no-segwit\");\n\u003e }\n\u003e }\n\nI don't think this is actually BIP 9 compatible. Once activated, the bit loses\nits meaning and should not be set. So you need to check that it hasn't locked-\nin already...\n\nI believe that is handled.\n\ntime \u003e= 1506816000 \u0026\u0026 time \u003c= 1510704000 \u0026\u0026 !IsWitnessEnabled()\n\nSignalling is only required from October 1st until the BIP9 timeout, or, until segwit is activated. The bit becomes free after activation/timeout as per BIP9. Also, the default behaviour of BIP9 in Bitcoin Core is to signal through the LOCKED_IN period - it would be trivial to add a condition to not require mandatory signalling during LOCKED_IN but since miners signal by default during this period, I figured I would leave it.\n\nI thought about 5% tolerance. but I don't think it makes sense since miners will already have plenty of warning this is coming up and the intent of the mandatory signalling period is quite clear. It also seems a bit weird to say \"it's mandatory but not for 5%\". If miners are required to signal, they need to signal. It also adds unnecessary complexity to an otherwise simple patch.\n\nThat said, I have no strong feelings either way on both counts, but I chose to present the simplest option first.\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20170313/236ddda6/attachment-0001.html\u003e",
"sig": "00ec2c82ed9b96120c8a0b4833b4a1db6058dc45b5f51b3ff2535a66086f5ca59544873b0521cc45a2ccb52bf316782b1c4d937bfe0fcc7f8f9010c73b667271"
}