📅 Original date posted:2017-05-26
📝 Original message:Just to clarify one thing, what I described differs from BIP91 in that
there's no orphaning. Just when Segwit2MB support reaches 80%, those 80%
join everyone else in signaling for BIP141. BIP91 orphaning is an optional
addition but my guess is it wouldn't be needed.
On May 26, 2017 4:02 PM, "Matt Corallo" <lf-lists at mattcorallo.com> wrote:
> Your proposal seems to be simply BIP 91 tied to the
> as-yet-entirely-undefined hard fork Barry et al proposed.
>
> Using James' BIP 91 instead of the Barry-bit-4/5/whatever proposal, as
> you propose, would make the deployment on the incredibly short timeline
> Barry et al proposed slightly more realistic, though I would expect to
> see hard fork code readily available and well-tested at this point in
> order to meet that timeline.
>
> Ultimately, due to their aggressive timeline, the Barry et al proposal
> is incredibly unlikely to meet the requirements of a
> multi-billion-dollar system, and continued research into meeting the
> spirit, not the text, of their agreement seems warranted.
>
> Matt
>
> On 05/26/17 17:47, Jacob Eliosoff via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> > 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.)
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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/20170526/b8000d3a/attachment.html>;
Jacob Eliosoff [ARCHIVE] /
npub1ml…4yf8d
2023-06-07 18:01:23
in reply to nevent1q…prrh
Author Public Key
npub1mlpmsc5sm93tw2fp2dhhuwmxcqm59wz6hjg5g3afq5rucfll3f9sh4yf8dPublished at
2023-06-07 18:01:23Event JSON
{
"id": "476029df4f7bc32f57bcbc1b40c5b8d9c31e472c78b7740af3cb9a3c9e658e2f",
"pubkey": "dfc3b86290d962b72921536f7e3b66c03742b85abc914447a90507cc27ff8a4b",
"created_at": 1686160883,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"5f4e5578a00516f73144a00c0c15e1afca8ff6c2e2a719034eb27cdcba62a8d3",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"dad0c45032b937c569b8420da3b0b0f969faba2ee353ae66a09e4ca3537f8391",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"cd753aa8fbc112e14ffe9fe09d3630f0eff76ca68e376e004b8e77b687adddba"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2017-05-26\n📝 Original message:Just to clarify one thing, what I described differs from BIP91 in that\nthere's no orphaning. Just when Segwit2MB support reaches 80%, those 80%\njoin everyone else in signaling for BIP141. BIP91 orphaning is an optional\naddition but my guess is it wouldn't be needed.\n\n\nOn May 26, 2017 4:02 PM, \"Matt Corallo\" \u003clf-lists at mattcorallo.com\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e Your proposal seems to be simply BIP 91 tied to the\n\u003e as-yet-entirely-undefined hard fork Barry et al proposed.\n\u003e\n\u003e Using James' BIP 91 instead of the Barry-bit-4/5/whatever proposal, as\n\u003e you propose, would make the deployment on the incredibly short timeline\n\u003e Barry et al proposed slightly more realistic, though I would expect to\n\u003e see hard fork code readily available and well-tested at this point in\n\u003e order to meet that timeline.\n\u003e\n\u003e Ultimately, due to their aggressive timeline, the Barry et al proposal\n\u003e is incredibly unlikely to meet the requirements of a\n\u003e multi-billion-dollar system, and continued research into meeting the\n\u003e spirit, not the text, of their agreement seems warranted.\n\u003e\n\u003e Matt\n\u003e\n\u003e On 05/26/17 17:47, Jacob Eliosoff via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e \u003e Forgive me if this is a dumb question. Suppose that rather than\n\u003e \u003e directly activating segwit, the Silbert/NYC Segwit2MB proposal's lock-in\n\u003e \u003e just triggered BIP141 signaling (plus later HF). Would that avoid\n\u003e \u003e incompatibility with existing BIP141 nodes, and get segwit activated\n\u003e \u003e sooner? Eg:\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e - Bit 4 (or bit 5 or whatever, now that BIP91 uses 4) signals support\n\u003e \u003e for \"segwit now, HF (TBD) at scheduled date (Nov 23?)\"\n\u003e \u003e - If bit 4 support reaches 80%, it locks in two things: the scheduled HF\n\u003e \u003e (conditional on segwit), and *immediately* turning on bit 1 (BIP141\n\u003e support)\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e I realize this would still leave problems like the aggressive HF\n\u003e \u003e schedule, possible chain split at the HF date between Segwit2MB nodes\n\u003e \u003e and any remaining BIP141 nodes, etc. My focus here is how\n\u003e \u003e incompatibility with existing nodes could be minimized.\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e (BIP91 could also be used if BIP141 support still fell short of 95%.\n\u003e \u003e But if Segwit2MB support reaches 80%, it seems likely that an additional\n\u003e \u003e 15% will support BIP141-without-HF.)\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e \u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e \u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e \u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e \u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e \u003e\n\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20170526/b8000d3a/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "c4d1ae9425a971f0d55eeb9eee4bbd6b5bce71baaf063de18163077377e46ab13ada2e868c7181358d919231851222b8d4e1e8f2962ef93907858fed19d9fd4e"
}