Wang Chun [ARCHIVE] / is on Nostr

⚠️ This account is not associated with a real person. It's an archival account for mailing list messages.
🗓️ Active from 2017-03-28 to 2017-06-19
💬 Posted a total of 4 messages
📚 Participated in the following categories: bitcoin-dev
🔇 Please do not DM this user as it's used for archive purposes only.

Last Notes

2023-06-07 18:03:24

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2017-06-19
📝 Original message:There has been proposal to change the PoW in case of potential 51% attacks
from malicious miners during a fork. But such a change in PoW renders
multi-billion-dollar of ASIC into worthless. which hurts economy so much
and the average innocent mining users. I would propose, instead of PoW
change, we could change the system to the same double sha256 PoW but mix it
with PoS features. Such a PoW+PoS system has several advantages:
* It protects existing multi-billion dollar investments from innocent
mining users,
* A malicious miner cannot launch attacks and rewrite the blockchain with
51% or even more hashrate,
* If we insert 4 PoS blocks between 2 PoW blocks, we'll have 2-minute block
time span, that solves the long confirmation time problem,
* We'll suddenly have 5 times of block space, that solves the scaling
problem,
* The PoS blocks only mine transaction fees, so the 21M cap remains,
* With careful design, the PoW+PoS transition _might_ be able to deploy
with a soft fork.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20170620/8b2e692c/attachment.html>

2023-06-07 18:01:42

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2017-05-24
📝 Original message:I think we should go for 75%, same Litecoin. As I have said before, 95% threshold is too high even for unconventional soft forks.
> 在 2017年5月24日，04:58，Andrew Chow via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> 写道：
>
> Ah. I see now. It wasn't very clear to me that that is what will happen.
>
> Also, shouldn't the timeout date be set for before the BIP141 timeout?
> Otherwise this could lock in but not have enough time for Segwit to be
> locked in.
>
>
>> On 5/23/2017 4:42 PM, James Hilliard wrote:
>> That is incorrect, it is compatible with the current segwit
>> implementation because it triggers a mandatory signalling period that
>> will activate segwit on existing nodes.
>>
>> On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 4:39 PM, Andrew Chow via bitcoin-dev
>> <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>> Hi James,
>>>
>>> From what I understand, this proposal is incompatible with the current
>>> segwit implementation with regards to the NODE_WITNESS service bit. I
>>> believe it could cause network partitioning if the service bit is not
>>> changed.
>>>
>>> Andrew
>>>
>>>
>>>> On 5/22/2017 6:40 PM, James Hilliard via bitcoin-dev wrote:
>>>> I would like to propose an implementation that accomplishes the first
>>>> part of the Barry Silbert proposal independently from the second:
>>>>
>>>> "Activate Segregated Witness at an 80% threshold, signaling at bit 4"
>>>> in a way that
>>>>
>>>> The goal here is to minimize chain split risk and network disruption
>>>> while maximizing backwards compatibility and still providing for rapid
>>>> activation of segwit at the 80% threshold using bit 4.
>>>>
>>>> By activating segwit immediately and separately from any HF we can
>>>> scale quickly without risking a rushed combined segwit+HF that would
>>>> almost certainly cause widespread issues.
>>>>
>>>> Draft proposal:
>>>> https://github.com/jameshilliard/bips/blob/bip-segsignal/bip-segsignal.mediawiki
>>>>
>>>> Proposal text:
>>>> <pre>
>>>> BIP: segsignal
>>>> Layer: Consensus (soft fork)
>>>> Title: Reduced signalling threshold activation of existing segwit deployment
>>>> Author: James Hilliard <james.hilliard1 at gmail.com>
>>>> Status: Draft
>>>> Type: Standards Track
>>>> Created: 2017-05-22
>>>> License: BSD-3-Clause
>>>> CC0-1.0
>>>> </pre>
>>>>
>>>> ==Abstract==
>>>>
>>>> This document specifies a method to activate the existing BIP9 segwit
>>>> deployment with a majority hashpower less than 95%.
>>>>
>>>> ==Definitions==
>>>>
>>>> "existing segwit deployment" refer to the BIP9 "segwit" deployment
>>>> using bit 1, between November 15th 2016 and November 15th 2017 to
>>>> activate BIP141, BIP143 and BIP147.
>>>>
>>>> ==Motivation==
>>>>
>>>> Segwit increases the blocksize, fixes transaction malleability, and
>>>> makes scripting easier to upgrade as well as bringing many other
>>>> [https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/01/26/segwit-benefits/ benefits].
>>>>
>>>> This BIP provides a way for a simple majority of miners to coordinate
>>>> activation of the existing segwit deployment with less than 95%
>>>> hashpower. For a number of reasons a complete redeployment of segwit
>>>> is difficulty to do until the existing deployment expires. This 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. A redeployment of segwit will need to redefine all these
>>>> things and doing so before expiry would greatly complicate testing.
>>>>
>>>> ==Specification==
>>>>
>>>> While this BIP is active, all blocks must set the nVersion header top
>>>> 3 bits to 001 together with bit field (1<<1) (according to the
>>>> existing segwit deployment). Blocks that do not signal as required
>>>> will be rejected.
>>>>
>>>> ==Deployment==
>>>>
>>>> This BIP will be deployed by a "version bits" with an 80%(this can be
>>>> adjusted if desired) activation threshold BIP9 with the name
>>>> "segsignal" and using bit 4.
>>>>
>>>> This BIP will have a start time of midnight June 1st, 2017 (epoch time
>>>> 1496275200) and timeout on midnight November 15th 2017 (epoch time
>>>> 1510704000). This BIP will cease to be active when segwit is
>>>> locked-in.
>>>>
>>>> === Reference implementation ===
>>>>
>>>> <pre>
>>>> // Check if Segregated Witness is Locked In
>>>> bool IsWitnessLockedIn(const CBlockIndex* pindexPrev, const
>>>> Consensus::Params& params)
>>>> {
>>>> LOCK(cs_main);
>>>> return (VersionBitsState(pindexPrev, params,
>>>> Consensus::DEPLOYMENT_SEGWIT, versionbitscache) ==
>>>> THRESHOLD_LOCKED_IN);
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> // SEGSIGNAL mandatory segwit signalling.
>>>> if ( VersionBitsState(pindex->pprev, chainparams.GetConsensus(),
>>>> Consensus::DEPLOYMENT_SEGSIGNAL, versionbitscache) == THRESHOLD_ACTIVE
>>>> &&
>>>> !IsWitnessLockedIn(pindex->pprev, chainparams.GetConsensus()) &&
>>>> // Segwit is not locked in
>>>> !IsWitnessEnabled(pindex->pprev, chainparams.GetConsensus()) ) //
>>>> and is not active.
>>>> {
>>>> bool fVersionBits = (pindex->nVersion & VERSIONBITS_TOP_MASK) ==
>>>> VERSIONBITS_TOP_BITS;
>>>> bool fSegbit = (pindex->nVersion &
>>>> VersionBitsMask(chainparams.GetConsensus(),
>>>> Consensus::DEPLOYMENT_SEGWIT)) != 0;
>>>> if (!(fVersionBits && fSegbit)) {
>>>> return state.DoS(0, error("ConnectBlock(): relayed block must
>>>> signal for segwit, please upgrade"), REJECT_INVALID, "bad-no-segwit");
>>>> }
>>>> }
>>>> </pre>
>>>>
>>>> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/0.14...jameshilliard:segsignal-v0.14.1
>>>>
>>>> ==Backwards Compatibility==
>>>>
>>>> This deployment is compatible with the existing "segwit" bit 1
>>>> deployment scheduled between midnight November 15th, 2016 and midnight
>>>> November 15th, 2017. Miners will need to upgrade their nodes to
>>>> support segsignal otherwise they may build on top of an invalid block.
>>>> While this bip is active users should either upgrade to segsignal or
>>>> wait for additional confirmations when accepting payments.
>>>>
>>>> ==Rationale==
>>>>
>>>> Historically we have used IsSuperMajority() to activate soft forks
>>>> such as BIP66 which has a mandatory signalling requirement for miners
>>>> once activated, this ensures that miners are aware of new rules being
>>>> enforced. This technique can be leveraged to lower the signalling
>>>> threshold of a soft fork while it is in the process of being deployed
>>>> in a backwards compatible way.
>>>>
>>>> By orphaning non-signalling blocks during the BIP9 bit 1 "segwit"
>>>> deployment, this BIP can cause the existing "segwit" deployment to
>>>> activate without needing to release a new deployment.
>>>>
>>>> ==References==
>>>>
>>>> *[https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-March/013714.html
>>>> Mailing list discussion]
>>>> *[https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/v0.6.0/src/main.cpp#L1281-L1283
>>>> P2SH flag day activation]
>>>> *[[bip-0009.mediawiki|BIP9 Version bits with timeout and delay]]
>>>> *[[bip-0016.mediawiki|BIP16 Pay to Script Hash]]
>>>> *[[bip-0141.mediawiki|BIP141 Segregated Witness (Consensus layer)]]
>>>> *[[bip-0143.mediawiki|BIP143 Transaction Signature Verification for
>>>> Version 0 Witness Program]]
>>>> *[[bip-0147.mediawiki|BIP147 Dealing with dummy stack element malleability]]
>>>> *[[bip-0148.mediawiki|BIP148 Mandatory activation of segwit deployment]]
>>>> *[[bip-0149.mediawiki|BIP149 Segregated Witness (second deployment)]]
>>>> *[https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/01/26/segwit-benefits/ Segwit benefits]
>>>>
>>>> ==Copyright==
>>>>
>>>> This document is dual licensed as BSD 3-clause, and Creative Commons
>>>> CC0 1.0 Universal.
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>>>> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>>>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>>> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

2023-06-07 17:58:02

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2017-03-28
📝 Original message:The basic idea is, let's stop the debate for whether we should upgrade
to 2MB, 8MB or 32MiB. 32MiB is well above any proposals' upper limit,
so any final decision would be a soft fork to this already deployed
release. If by 2020, we still agree 1MB is enough, it can be changed
back to 1MB limit and it would also a soft fork on top of that.
On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 1:23 AM, Alphonse Pace <alp.bitcoin at gmail.com> wrote:
> What meeting are you referring to? Who were the participants?
>
> Removing the limit but relying on the p2p protocol is not really a true
> 32MiB limit, but a limit of whatever transport methods provide. This can
> lead to differing consensus if alternative layers for relaying are used.
> What you seem to be asking for is an unbound block size (or at least
> determined by whatever miners produce). This has the possibility (and even
> likelihood) of removing many participants from the network, including many
> small miners.
>
> 32MB in less than 3 years also appears to be far beyond limits of safety
> which are known to exist far sooner, and we cannot expect hardware and
> networking layers to improve by those amounts in that time.
>
> It also seems like it would be much better to wait until SegWit activates in
> order to truly measure the effects on the network from this increased
> capacity before committing to any additional increases.
>
> -Alphonse
>
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 11:59 AM, Wang Chun via bitcoin-dev
> <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>
>> I've proposed this hard fork approach last year in Hong Kong Consensus
>> but immediately rejected by coredevs at that meeting, after more than
>> one year it seems that lots of people haven't heard of it. So I would
>> post this here again for comment.
>>
>> The basic idea is, as many of us agree, hard fork is risky and should
>> be well prepared. We need a long time to deploy it.
>>
>> Despite spam tx on the network, the block capacity is approaching its
>> limit, and we must think ahead. Shall we code a patch right now, to
>> remove the block size limit of 1MB, but not activate it until far in
>> the future. I would propose to remove the 1MB limit at the next block
>> halving in spring 2020, only limit the block size to 32MiB which is
>> the maximum size the current p2p protocol allows. This patch must be
>> in the immediate next release of Bitcoin Core.
>>
>> With this patch in core's next release, Bitcoin works just as before,
>> no fork will ever occur, until spring 2020. But everyone knows there
>> will be a fork scheduled. Third party services, libraries, wallets and
>> exchanges will have enough time to prepare for it over the next three
>> years.
>>
>> We don't yet have an agreement on how to increase the block size
>> limit. There have been many proposals over the past years, like
>> BIP100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 109, 148, 248, BU, and so
>> on. These hard fork proposals, with this patch already in Core's
>> release, they all become soft fork. We'll have enough time to discuss
>> all these proposals and decide which one to go. Take an example, if we
>> choose to fork to only 2MB, since 32MiB already scheduled, reduce it
>> from 32MiB to 2MB will be a soft fork.
>>
>> Anyway, we must code something right now, before it becomes too late.
>> _______________________________________________
>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
>

2023-06-07 17:58:00

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2017-03-28
📝 Original message:I've proposed this hard fork approach last year in Hong Kong Consensus
but immediately rejected by coredevs at that meeting, after more than
one year it seems that lots of people haven't heard of it. So I would
post this here again for comment.
The basic idea is, as many of us agree, hard fork is risky and should
be well prepared. We need a long time to deploy it.
Despite spam tx on the network, the block capacity is approaching its
limit, and we must think ahead. Shall we code a patch right now, to
remove the block size limit of 1MB, but not activate it until far in
the future. I would propose to remove the 1MB limit at the next block
halving in spring 2020, only limit the block size to 32MiB which is
the maximum size the current p2p protocol allows. This patch must be
in the immediate next release of Bitcoin Core.
With this patch in core's next release, Bitcoin works just as before,
no fork will ever occur, until spring 2020. But everyone knows there
will be a fork scheduled. Third party services, libraries, wallets and
exchanges will have enough time to prepare for it over the next three
years.
We don't yet have an agreement on how to increase the block size
limit. There have been many proposals over the past years, like
BIP100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 109, 148, 248, BU, and so
on. These hard fork proposals, with this patch already in Core's
release, they all become soft fork. We'll have enough time to discuss
all these proposals and decide which one to go. Take an example, if we
choose to fork to only 2MB, since 32MiB already scheduled, reduce it
from 32MiB to 2MB will be a soft fork.
Anyway, we must code something right now, before it becomes too late.