From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <1240902@gmail.com> Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 11A477AA for ; Wed, 24 May 2017 16:02:14 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-pg0-f68.google.com (mail-pg0-f68.google.com [74.125.83.68]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 49B39228 for ; Wed, 24 May 2017 16:02:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pg0-f68.google.com with SMTP id s62so17578817pgc.0 for ; Wed, 24 May 2017 09:02:13 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=pHjGS4Eh7x57nAqXXYR9sqQA8PmYl2Hb25nbXyzXQas=; b=HTUtImtDK1y5pw5EwOamwNy2FWI7q+Fg2EGOePAss0PBBQvZ5+NtLjj5PUNSnmdqFb AupazVhGMQJYWQ0mmONtZck0cMZtoi6D2/IMQqOXWKoUZqcYj3KLNyuiES8NEP1bLagI /hrxDH0r9dSKKO08sxdySsxAYUjCSxKAFuVB9ekrmVgLdwWpwffVShb9bECwwZt/mcZr k/kjGZtPOZczb1FBmVcHgKtWPFZ9ZVoqj11x/PlVTl53h/OR2I8qKw1lhOqh+hQIDmIq R2Mfvvx9N6cS1tL7o+ECFBGhcifT4Tpf7cjFyRAOe6AFvLbo0akoy8JLkcEGSIkmYh/L h2NQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=pHjGS4Eh7x57nAqXXYR9sqQA8PmYl2Hb25nbXyzXQas=; b=cKy8MXFrHuB7GzfDvcQYlrKYmoBXC85F4EM6CQC1n4V6a2/OmPoMyl78s/0/NFCZ8c oVcTjnUm7xMqGA59b5Pxih4pu3ATTRh2/jXPo2KybAnA28BPAPritKgkL2TPWHoOSMB0 HVPEizCYW5mDtM4Fg8iic7um+pQhz3nsJSB/oIypTKCj24Fp/Xbff5/+6lfDSSNLtCmS kGMAM+0Nxipap6c9oYvzWzt9ThsE+t10Mt2kXJPwR6T9yt3NjWsov6WS8RYU2CRZuSkZ KplZ9TVVPnsMmjiHtGJDFx7vlsUSAh1M6gLCbgFhbKm6rEt/yxyj17NYBph7/MHPiWUZ HclA== X-Gm-Message-State: AODbwcByf+IuySMUWHUH8JXaoJSP8rEDljTreIbLmAa+hbiQLcSOx9Vl Ndtc+cSc5OWHqw== X-Received: by 10.98.11.79 with SMTP id t76mr39084106pfi.104.1495641732771; Wed, 24 May 2017 09:02:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.217.0.89] (ppp-27-55-223-176.revip3.asianet.co.th. [27.55.223.176]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id y22sm10069218pgc.13.2017.05.24.09.02.11 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 24 May 2017 09:02:12 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=gb2312 Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) From: Wang Chun <1240902@gmail.com> X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (14E304) In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 00:02:09 +0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <4C86CB4F-4ED2-4908-BF5D-6115891DA1D4@gmail.com> References: To: Andrew Chow X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT,FREEMAIL_FROM, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM autolearn=no version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Reduced signalling threshold activation of existing segwit deployment 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: Wed, 24 May 2017 16:02:14 -0000 I think we should go for 75%, same Litecoin. As I have said before, 95% thre= shold is too high even for unconventional soft forks. > =D4=DA 2017=C4=EA5=D4=C224=C8=D5=A3=AC04:58=A3=ACAndrew Chow via bitcoin-d= ev =D0=B4=B5=C0=A3=BA >=20 > Ah. I see now. It wasn't very clear to me that that is what will happen. >=20 > Also, shouldn't the timeout date be set for before the BIP141 timeout? > Otherwise this could lock in but not have enough time for Segwit to be > locked in. >=20 >=20 >> On 5/23/2017 4:42 PM, James Hilliard wrote: >> That is incorrect, it is compatible with the current segwit >> implementation because it triggers a mandatory signalling period that >> will activate segwit on existing nodes. >>=20 >> On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 4:39 PM, Andrew Chow via bitcoin-dev >> wrote: >>> Hi James, >>>=20 >>> =46rom what I understand, this proposal is incompatible with the current= >>> segwit implementation with regards to the NODE_WITNESS service bit. I >>> believe it could cause network partitioning if the service bit is not >>> changed. >>>=20 >>> Andrew >>>=20 >>>=20 >>>> On 5/22/2017 6:40 PM, James Hilliard via bitcoin-dev wrote: >>>> I would like to propose an implementation that accomplishes the first >>>> part of the Barry Silbert proposal independently from the second: >>>>=20 >>>> "Activate Segregated Witness at an 80% threshold, signaling at bit 4" >>>> in a way that >>>>=20 >>>> The goal here is to minimize chain split risk and network disruption >>>> while maximizing backwards compatibility and still providing for rapid >>>> activation of segwit at the 80% threshold using bit 4. >>>>=20 >>>> By activating segwit immediately and separately from any HF we can >>>> scale quickly without risking a rushed combined segwit+HF that would >>>> almost certainly cause widespread issues. >>>>=20 >>>> Draft proposal: >>>> https://github.com/jameshilliard/bips/blob/bip-segsignal/bip-segsignal.= mediawiki >>>>=20 >>>> Proposal text: >>>> 
>>>>  BIP: segsignal
>>>>  Layer: Consensus (soft fork)
>>>>  Title: Reduced signalling threshold activation of existing segwit depl=
oyment
>>>>  Author: James Hilliard 
>>>>  Status: Draft
>>>>  Type: Standards Track
>>>>  Created: 2017-05-22
>>>>  License: BSD-3-Clause
>>>>           CC0-1.0
>>>>
>>>>=20 >>>> =3D=3DAbstract=3D=3D >>>>=20 >>>> This document specifies a method to activate the existing BIP9 segwit >>>> deployment with a majority hashpower less than 95%. >>>>=20 >>>> =3D=3DDefinitions=3D=3D >>>>=20 >>>> "existing segwit deployment" refer to the BIP9 "segwit" deployment >>>> using bit 1, between November 15th 2016 and November 15th 2017 to >>>> activate BIP141, BIP143 and BIP147. >>>>=20 >>>> =3D=3DMotivation=3D=3D >>>>=20 >>>> Segwit increases the blocksize, fixes transaction malleability, and >>>> makes scripting easier to upgrade as well as bringing many other >>>> [https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/01/26/segwit-benefits/ benefits]. >>>>=20 >>>> This BIP provides a way for a simple majority of miners to coordinate >>>> activation of the existing segwit deployment with less than 95% >>>> hashpower. For a number of reasons a complete redeployment of segwit >>>> is difficulty to do until the existing deployment expires. This is due >>>> to 0.13.1+ having many segwit related features active already, >>>> including all the P2P components, the new network service flag, the >>>> witness-tx and block messages, compact blocks v2 and preferential >>>> peering. A redeployment of segwit will need to redefine all these >>>> things and doing so before expiry would greatly complicate testing. >>>>=20 >>>> =3D=3DSpecification=3D=3D >>>>=20 >>>> While this BIP is active, all blocks must set the nVersion header top >>>> 3 bits to 001 together with bit field (1<<1) (according to the >>>> existing segwit deployment). Blocks that do not signal as required >>>> will be rejected. >>>>=20 >>>> =3D=3DDeployment=3D=3D >>>>=20 >>>> This BIP will be deployed by a "version bits" with an 80%(this can be >>>> adjusted if desired) activation threshold BIP9 with the name >>>> "segsignal" and using bit 4. >>>>=20 >>>> This BIP will have a start time of midnight June 1st, 2017 (epoch time >>>> 1496275200) and timeout on midnight November 15th 2017 (epoch time >>>> 1510704000). This BIP will cease to be active when segwit is >>>> locked-in. >>>>=20 >>>> =3D=3D=3D Reference implementation =3D=3D=3D >>>>=20 >>>> 
>>>> // Check if Segregated Witness is Locked In
>>>> bool IsWitnessLockedIn(const CBlockIndex* pindexPrev, const
>>>> Consensus::Params& params)
>>>> {
>>>>    LOCK(cs_main);
>>>>    return (VersionBitsState(pindexPrev, params,
>>>> Consensus::DEPLOYMENT_SEGWIT, versionbitscache) =3D=3D
>>>> THRESHOLD_LOCKED_IN);
>>>> }
>>>>=20
>>>> // SEGSIGNAL mandatory segwit signalling.
>>>> if ( VersionBitsState(pindex->pprev, chainparams.GetConsensus(),
>>>> Consensus::DEPLOYMENT_SEGSIGNAL, versionbitscache) =3D=3D THRESHOLD_ACT=
IVE
>>>> &&
>>>>     !IsWitnessLockedIn(pindex->pprev, chainparams.GetConsensus()) &&
>>>> // Segwit is not locked in
>>>>     !IsWitnessEnabled(pindex->pprev, chainparams.GetConsensus()) ) //
>>>> and is not active.
>>>> {
>>>>    bool fVersionBits =3D (pindex->nVersion & VERSIONBITS_TOP_MASK) =3D=3D=

>>>> VERSIONBITS_TOP_BITS;
>>>>    bool fSegbit =3D (pindex->nVersion &
>>>> VersionBitsMask(chainparams.GetConsensus(),
>>>> Consensus::DEPLOYMENT_SEGWIT)) !=3D 0;
>>>>    if (!(fVersionBits && fSegbit)) {
>>>>        return state.DoS(0, error("ConnectBlock(): relayed block must
>>>> signal for segwit, please upgrade"), REJECT_INVALID, "bad-no-segwit");
>>>>    }
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>>=20 >>>> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/0.14...jameshilliard:segsign= al-v0.14.1 >>>>=20 >>>> =3D=3DBackwards Compatibility=3D=3D >>>>=20 >>>> This deployment is compatible with the existing "segwit" bit 1 >>>> deployment scheduled between midnight November 15th, 2016 and midnight >>>> November 15th, 2017. Miners will need to upgrade their nodes to >>>> support segsignal otherwise they may build on top of an invalid block. >>>> While this bip is active users should either upgrade to segsignal or >>>> wait for additional confirmations when accepting payments. >>>>=20 >>>> =3D=3DRationale=3D=3D >>>>=20 >>>> Historically we have used IsSuperMajority() to activate soft forks >>>> such as BIP66 which has a mandatory signalling requirement for miners >>>> once activated, this ensures that miners are aware of new rules being >>>> enforced. This technique can be leveraged to lower the signalling >>>> threshold of a soft fork while it is in the process of being deployed >>>> in a backwards compatible way. >>>>=20 >>>> By orphaning non-signalling blocks during the BIP9 bit 1 "segwit" >>>> deployment, this BIP can cause the existing "segwit" deployment to >>>> activate without needing to release a new deployment. >>>>=20 >>>> =3D=3DReferences=3D=3D >>>>=20 >>>> *[https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-March/01= 3714.html >>>> Mailing list discussion] >>>> *[https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/v0.6.0/src/main.cpp#L1281-L12= 83 >>>> P2SH flag day activation] >>>> *[[bip-0009.mediawiki|BIP9 Version bits with timeout and delay]] >>>> *[[bip-0016.mediawiki|BIP16 Pay to Script Hash]] >>>> *[[bip-0141.mediawiki|BIP141 Segregated Witness (Consensus layer)]] >>>> *[[bip-0143.mediawiki|BIP143 Transaction Signature Verification for >>>> Version 0 Witness Program]] >>>> *[[bip-0147.mediawiki|BIP147 Dealing with dummy stack element malleabil= ity]] >>>> *[[bip-0148.mediawiki|BIP148 Mandatory activation of segwit deployment]= ] >>>> *[[bip-0149.mediawiki|BIP149 Segregated Witness (second deployment)]] >>>> *[https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/01/26/segwit-benefits/ Segwit benefit= s] >>>>=20 >>>> =3D=3DCopyright=3D=3D >>>>=20 >>>> This document is dual licensed as BSD 3-clause, and Creative Commons >>>> CC0 1.0 Universal. >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> bitcoin-dev mailing list >>>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org >>>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >>> _______________________________________________ >>> bitcoin-dev mailing list >>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org >>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >=20 > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev