📅 Original date posted:2017-06-20
📝 Original message:> Ironically, it looks like most of the segwit2x signaling miners are
> faking it (because they're not signaling segwit which it requires).
> It'll be unfortunate if some aren't faking it and start orphaning
> their own blocks because they are failing to signal segwit.
Well, they're doing some kind of "pre-signaling" in the coinbase at the
moment, because the segwit2x project is still in alpha-phase according to
the timeline. They're just showing commitment.
I'm sure they will begin signaling on version bit 4/BIP91 as well as
actually running a segwit2x node when the time comes.
> As far as prevent a chain split goes, all those things
> (148/91/segwit2x(per today)) effectively guarantee a chainsplit-- so I
> don't think that holds.
Segwit2x/BIP91/BIP148 will orphan miners that do not run a Segwit2x (or
BIP148) node, because they wouldn't have the new consensus rule of
requiring all blocks to signal for segwit.
I don't believe there would be any long lasting chainsplit though (because
of the ~80% hashrate support on segwit2x), perhaps 2-3 blocks if we get
unlucky.
Hampus
2017-06-20 23:49 GMT+02:00 Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>:
> On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 3:44 PM, Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev
> <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > Because a large percentage of miners are indifferent, right now miners
> have
> > to choose between BIP148 and Segwit2x if they want to activate Segwit.
>
> Miners can simply continuing signaling segwit, which will leave them
> at least soft-fork compatible with BIP148 and BIP91 (and god knows
> what "segwit2x" is since they keep changing the actual definition and
> do not have a specification; but last I saw the near-term behavior the
> same as BIP91 but with a radically reduced activation window, so the
> story would be the same there in the near term).
>
> Ironically, it looks like most of the segwit2x signaling miners are
> faking it (because they're not signaling segwit which it requires).
> It'll be unfortunate if some aren't faking it and start orphaning
> their own blocks because they are failing to signal segwit.
>
> I don't think the rejection of segwit2x from Bitcoin's developers
> could be any more resolute than what we've already seen:
> https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Segwit_support
>
> On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 5:22 PM, Mark Friedenbach via bitcoin-dev
> <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > I think it is very naïve to assume that any shift would be temporary.
> > We have a hard enough time getting miners to proactively upgrade to
> > recent versions of the reference bitcoin daemon. If miners interpret
> > the situation as being forced to run non-reference software in order
> > to prevent a chain split because a lack of support from Bitcoin Core,
> > that could be a one-way street.
>
> I think this is somewhat naive and sounds a lot like the repeat of the
> previously debunked "XT" and "Classic" hysteria.
>
> There is a reason that segwit2x is pretty much unanimously rejected by
> the technical community. And just like with XT/Classic/Unlimited
> you'll continue to see a strong correlation with people who are
> unwilling and unable to keep updating the software at an acceptable
> level of quality-- esp. because the very founding on their fork is
> predicated on discarding those properties.
>
> If miners want to go off and create an altcoin-- welp, thats something
> they can always do, and nothing about that will force anyone to go
> along with it.
>
> As far as prevent a chain split goes, all those things
> (148/91/segwit2x(per today)) effectively guarantee a chainsplit-- so I
> don't think that holds.
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20170621/0d0761cf/attachment.html>;
Hampus Sjöberg [ARCHIVE] /
npub10u…hln8t
2023-06-07 18:03:26
in reply to nevent1q…2ndm
Author Public Key
npub10uzud4rf4636awmfgvarmcfndcmdnv8rfd2y3rx2sqgckv9zur4qahln8tPublished at
2023-06-07 18:03:26Event JSON
{
"id": "61af0dd8bb39b928c0d14fe4ec31d9ceba590ccc64fb78d480ed6d2b9bcdd445",
"pubkey": "7f05c6d469aea3aebb69433a3de1336e36d9b0e34b54488cca80118b30a2e0ea",
"created_at": 1686161006,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"f10d3c1837e5518719736f82b51f13e32ba605e8e3996b8db87dad10332b09a3",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"fb63e6b148e828b0cb3dc283ecceab0a83274c5449f645735e416306194fb0f7",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"4aa6cf9aa5c8e98f401dac603c6a10207509b6a07317676e9d6615f3d7103d73"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2017-06-20\n📝 Original message:\u003e Ironically, it looks like most of the segwit2x signaling miners are\n\u003e faking it (because they're not signaling segwit which it requires).\n\u003e It'll be unfortunate if some aren't faking it and start orphaning\n\u003e their own blocks because they are failing to signal segwit.\n\nWell, they're doing some kind of \"pre-signaling\" in the coinbase at the\nmoment, because the segwit2x project is still in alpha-phase according to\nthe timeline. They're just showing commitment.\nI'm sure they will begin signaling on version bit 4/BIP91 as well as\nactually running a segwit2x node when the time comes.\n\n\u003e As far as prevent a chain split goes, all those things\n\u003e (148/91/segwit2x(per today)) effectively guarantee a chainsplit-- so I\n\u003e don't think that holds.\n\nSegwit2x/BIP91/BIP148 will orphan miners that do not run a Segwit2x (or\nBIP148) node, because they wouldn't have the new consensus rule of\nrequiring all blocks to signal for segwit.\nI don't believe there would be any long lasting chainsplit though (because\nof the ~80% hashrate support on segwit2x), perhaps 2-3 blocks if we get\nunlucky.\n\nHampus\n\n2017-06-20 23:49 GMT+02:00 Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev \u003c\nbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e:\n\n\u003e On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 3:44 PM, Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev\n\u003e \u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \u003e Because a large percentage of miners are indifferent, right now miners\n\u003e have\n\u003e \u003e to choose between BIP148 and Segwit2x if they want to activate Segwit.\n\u003e\n\u003e Miners can simply continuing signaling segwit, which will leave them\n\u003e at least soft-fork compatible with BIP148 and BIP91 (and god knows\n\u003e what \"segwit2x\" is since they keep changing the actual definition and\n\u003e do not have a specification; but last I saw the near-term behavior the\n\u003e same as BIP91 but with a radically reduced activation window, so the\n\u003e story would be the same there in the near term).\n\u003e\n\u003e Ironically, it looks like most of the segwit2x signaling miners are\n\u003e faking it (because they're not signaling segwit which it requires).\n\u003e It'll be unfortunate if some aren't faking it and start orphaning\n\u003e their own blocks because they are failing to signal segwit.\n\u003e\n\u003e I don't think the rejection of segwit2x from Bitcoin's developers\n\u003e could be any more resolute than what we've already seen:\n\u003e https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Segwit_support\n\u003e\n\u003e On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 5:22 PM, Mark Friedenbach via bitcoin-dev\n\u003e \u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \u003e I think it is very naïve to assume that any shift would be temporary.\n\u003e \u003e We have a hard enough time getting miners to proactively upgrade to\n\u003e \u003e recent versions of the reference bitcoin daemon. If miners interpret\n\u003e \u003e the situation as being forced to run non-reference software in order\n\u003e \u003e to prevent a chain split because a lack of support from Bitcoin Core,\n\u003e \u003e that could be a one-way street.\n\u003e\n\u003e I think this is somewhat naive and sounds a lot like the repeat of the\n\u003e previously debunked \"XT\" and \"Classic\" hysteria.\n\u003e\n\u003e There is a reason that segwit2x is pretty much unanimously rejected by\n\u003e the technical community. And just like with XT/Classic/Unlimited\n\u003e you'll continue to see a strong correlation with people who are\n\u003e unwilling and unable to keep updating the software at an acceptable\n\u003e level of quality-- esp. because the very founding on their fork is\n\u003e predicated on discarding those properties.\n\u003e\n\u003e If miners want to go off and create an altcoin-- welp, thats something\n\u003e they can always do, and nothing about that will force anyone to go\n\u003e along with it.\n\u003e\n\u003e As far as prevent a chain split goes, all those things\n\u003e (148/91/segwit2x(per today)) effectively guarantee a chainsplit-- so I\n\u003e don't think that holds.\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\n\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20170621/0d0761cf/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "9a919a202855118a223e565dc0a2a46f99b3df7b3fd01ce614e26623cc002a521c1c63eb698511493fd546c8d9c52c2b7984141ac75fcb216ebe80823c74aae0"
}