public inbox for bitcoindev@googlegroups.com
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Johnson Lau <jl2012@xbt.hk>
To: Tom Harding <tomh@thinlink.com>,
	 Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
	<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] New BIP: Dealing with dummy stack element malleability
Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2016 08:29:37 -0400 (EDT)	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1966185375.94265.1472992177565@privateemail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <198f7a5e-7912-dfb2-1b61-388a4f81b7b5@thinlink.com>

Although it is technically possible to bundle 2 independent softforks in one release, it increases the burden of testing and maintenance. We need to test and prepare for 4 scenarios: both not activated, only NULLDUMMY activated, only SEGWIT activated, and both activated.

Also, as we learnt from BIP66, softfork activation could be risky. It is evident that today a non-negligible percentage of miners are hard-coding the block version number. This increases the risks of softfork transition as miners may not enforce what they are signaling (btw this is also happening on testnet) Making 2 independently softforks would double the risks, and I believe NULLDUMMY alone is not worth the risks.
 
> On September 2, 2016 at 1:10 PM Tom Harding via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> 
> 
> On 9/1/2016 9:40 PM, Johnson Lau via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> > This BIP will be deployed by "version bits" BIP9 using the same parameters for BIP141 and BIP143, with the name "segwit" and using bit 1.
> >
> 
> This fix has value outside of segwit.  Why bundle the two together? 
> Shouldn't miners have to opportunity to vote on them independently?
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev


      reply	other threads:[~2016-09-04 12:29 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-09-02  4:40 [bitcoin-dev] New BIP: Dealing with dummy stack element malleability Johnson Lau
2016-09-02  5:47 ` Peter Todd
2016-09-02 17:10 ` Tom Harding
2016-09-04 12:29   ` Johnson Lau [this message]

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=1966185375.94265.1472992177565@privateemail.com \
    --to=jl2012@xbt.hk \
    --cc=bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=tomh@thinlink.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox