Re: [bitcoin-dev] Start time for BIP141 (segwit)

[Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2237 bytes --]

On Sun, Oct 16, 2016 at 04:31:55PM +0200, Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> Hello all,
> 
> We're getting ready for Bitcoin Core's 0.13.1 release - the first one
> to include segregated witness (BIP 141, 143, 144, 145) for Bitcoin
> mainnet, after being extensively tested on testnet and in other
> software. Following the BIP9 recommendation [1] to set the versionbits
> start time a month in the future and discussion in the last IRC
> meeting [2], I propose we set BIP 141's start time to November 15,
> 2016, 0:00 UTC (unix time 1479168000).

Speaking as maintainer of python-bitcoinlib, ACK.

Currently python-bitcoinlib doesn't have any support for segwit, although Bob
McElrath has had a pull-req open for it since July:

    https://github.com/petertodd/python-bitcoinlib/pull/112

I may or may not get time to finishing reviewing and merging that pull-req
before segwit activates - I've been a rather distracted maintainer. But either
way, as has been explained elsewhere ad nauseam, segwit is backwards compatible
with existing nodes and wallets so there's no rush to upgrade.

For example, another project of mine - OpenTimestamps - also makes use of
python-bitcoinlib for the relatively complex and hairy low-level code that
extracts timestamp proofs from blocks, among other things. In fact, in the
development of OpenTimestamps I had to fix a few minor bugs in
python-bitcoinlib, because it exercised parts of the codebase that few other
projects do.

Yet the impact on segwit for OpenTimestamps will be zero - since segwit is a
softfork it's 100% backwards compatible with existing software. Of course, at
some point in the future I'll probably get around to adding segwit support to
the software to reduce transaction fees, but there's no rush to do so. All I'll
be doing for segwit in the near future is upgrading the full nodes on the two
redundant OpenTimestamps calendar servers to v0.13.1, and even there I'll be
able to stagger the upgrades to protect against the unlikely occurance of
v0.13.1 having a bug that v0.13.0 doesn't. Again, staggering full-node upgrades
is only possible because segwit is a soft-fork.

-- 
https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 455 bytes --]