From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BEEFF6C for ; Sun, 4 Sep 2016 12:29:40 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from erelay3.ox.registrar-servers.com (erelay3.ox.registrar-servers.com [192.64.117.2]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2FC05206 for ; Sun, 4 Sep 2016 12:29:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by erelay1.ox.registrar-servers.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5115A2207881; Sun, 4 Sep 2016 12:29:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from erelay1.ox.registrar-servers.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (erelay.ox.registrar-servers.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id Uc87fATEB3Js; Sun, 4 Sep 2016 08:29:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from MTA-07.privateemail.com (unknown [10.20.150.170]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by erelay1.ox.registrar-servers.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D8E7B22079D3; Sun, 4 Sep 2016 08:29:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from APP-01 (unknown [10.20.147.151]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by MTA-07.privateemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8C58260032; Sun, 4 Sep 2016 12:29:37 +0000 (UTC) Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2016 08:29:37 -0400 (EDT) From: Johnson Lau Reply-To: Johnson Lau To: Tom Harding , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Message-ID: <1966185375.94265.1472992177565@privateemail.com> In-Reply-To: <198f7a5e-7912-dfb2-1b61-388a4f81b7b5@thinlink.com> References: <1317364559.64256.1472791258452@privateemail.com> <198f7a5e-7912-dfb2-1b61-388a4f81b7b5@thinlink.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 Importance: Medium X-Mailer: Open-Xchange Mailer v7.8.1-Rev19 X-Originating-Client: open-xchange-appsuite X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] New BIP: Dealing with dummy stack element malleability X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 04 Sep 2016 12:29:40 -0000 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 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