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 AB4B8B7D for ; Fri, 12 May 2017 19:23:00 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from zinan.dashjr.org (zinan.dashjr.org [192.3.11.21]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2BDD21AC for ; Fri, 12 May 2017 19:23:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ishibashi.localnet (unknown [IPv6:2001:470:5:265:a45d:823b:2d27:961c]) (Authenticated sender: luke-jr) by zinan.dashjr.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5561038A0081 for ; Fri, 12 May 2017 19:22:58 +0000 (UTC) X-Hashcash: 1:25:170512:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org::0hoKDosS2G1+E2da:hfVg From: Luke Dashjr To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 19:22:56 +0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/4.9.16-gentoo; KDE/4.14.29; x86_64; ; ) X-PGP-Key-Fingerprint: E463 A93F 5F31 17EE DE6C 7316 BD02 9424 21F4 889F X-PGP-Key-ID: BD02942421F4889F X-PGP-Keyserver: hkp://pgp.mit.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201705121922.57445.luke@dashjr.org> X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED, RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Subject: [bitcoin-dev] BIP: Block signal enforcement via tx fees 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: Fri, 12 May 2017 19:23:00 -0000 I've written a new BIP draft for OP_CHECKBLOCKVERSION to allow the community to put economic pressure on miners to deploy softforks without the extreme of a UASF. https://github.com/luke-jr/bips/blob/bip-cbv/bip-cbv.mediawiki Due to the potential for miners to maliciously block this softfork, it is suggested that we deploy it using BIP 8 to ensure it eventually activates even if encountering hostility. This is intended to be an alternative to BIP 8 in the long term. It is NOT intended to make BIP 148 obsolete, given the timeframes involved. An implementation is available (based on top of BIP 115's implementation): https://github.com/luke-jr/bitcoin/compare/cbah...luke-jr:checkblockversion Luke