public inbox for bitcoindev@googlegroups.com
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Tom Zander <tomz@freedommail.ch>
To: "bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org"
	<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP proposal: Generalized version bits voting (bip-genvbvoting)
Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2017 13:16:08 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4095148.TDyWagoPAR@strawberry> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <PU5yHaeZtxR5ManpM0q7ZIN1pElEorBfO09u7ZIC-h81mQizYCZ5qNv89Tb2ZLNHbCktmV65q2Xkm1K3UckvVZLOWBMW7-riWYRY4HtFe1A=@protonmail.com>

On Monday, 3 April 2017 11:06:02 CEST Sancho Panza wrote:
> ==Specification==
> 
> To be elaborated.

Please do elaborate :)

The meat of the proposal is missing.
 
> It is thought that only cosmetic changes are needed to generalize from
> only soft forks to 'soft or hard forks', and to add the additional
> per-bit parameters 'threshold' and 'windowsize'

I agree that the type of forks are rather irrelevant to the voting 
mechanism. As we remember that BIP109 used a voting bit too.

The per-bit (lets call that per-proposal) parameter threshold and windowsize 
are a different matter though, based on the next paragraph you wrote;

> The design of the state machine is envisioned to remain unchanged.

The entire point of BIP9 is to allow nodes that do not know about an upgrade 
to still have a functional state machine. But I don’t see how you can have a 
state machine if the two basic variables that drive it are not specified.

Now, to be clear, I am a big fan of making the window size and the threshold 
more flexible.
But in my opinion we would not be able to have a state machine without those 
variables in the actual BIP because old nodes would miss the data to 
transition to certain states.

Maybe an idea; we have 30 bits. 2 currently in use (although we could reuse 
the CSV one). Maybe we can come up with 3 default sets of properties and 
when a proposal starts to use bit 11 it behaves differently than if it uses 
22.
-- 
Tom Zander
Blog: https://zander.github.io
Vlog: https://vimeo.com/channels/tomscryptochannel


  reply	other threads:[~2017-04-04 11:16 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-04-03  9:06 [bitcoin-dev] BIP proposal: Generalized version bits voting (bip-genvbvoting) Sancho Panza
2017-04-04 11:16 ` Tom Zander [this message]
2017-04-04 16:41   ` Sancho Panza
2017-04-04 16:49   ` Sancho Panza
2017-04-04 18:01 ` Luke Dashjr
2017-04-04 19:28   ` Sancho Panza
2017-04-05 10:08   ` Tom Zander
2017-04-05 14:09     ` Thomas Kerin
2017-04-08 21:58       ` Sancho Panza

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=4095148.TDyWagoPAR@strawberry \
    --to=tomz@freedommail.ch \
    --cc=bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org \
    /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