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 062D37A8 for ; Fri, 7 Jul 2017 22:44:24 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail.bluematt.me (mail.bluematt.me [192.241.179.72]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 776DD17C for ; Fri, 7 Jul 2017 22:44:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [172.17.0.2] (gw.vpn.bluematt.me [144.217.106.88]) by mail.bluematt.me (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1842E13C171; Fri, 7 Jul 2017 22:44:22 +0000 (UTC) To: Sergio Demian Lerner , bitcoin-dev References: From: Matt Corallo Message-ID: <93708933-fdea-cdfc-20fc-b18040b98110@mattcorallo.com> Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2017 18:44:21 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.2.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 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] A Segwit2x BIP 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, 07 Jul 2017 22:44:24 -0000 This is horribly under-specified (ie not possible to implement from what you've written, and your implementation doesn't match at all, last I heard). > Specification > The plain block size is defined as the serialized block size without > witness programs. > Deploy a modified BIP91 to activate Segwit. The only modification is > that the signal "segsignal" is replaced by "segwit2x". This is not a protocol change. I have no idea why you included it in the "specification" section. > If segwit2x (BIP91 signal) activates at block N, then block N+12960 > activates a new plain block size limit of 2 MB (2,000,000 bytes). In > this case, at block N+12960 a hard-fork occurs. This is not a hard fork, simply adding a new limit is a soft fork. You appear to be confused - as originally written, AFAIR, Jeff's btc1 branch did not increase the block size, your specification here matches that original change, and does not increase the block size. > The block that activates the hard-fork must have a plain block size > greater than 1 MB. There is no hard fork, and this would violate consensus rules. Not sure what you mean. If you do add a hard fork to this BIP, you really need to flip the hard fork bit. > Any transaction with a non-witness serialized size exceeding 1,000,000 > is invalid. This is far from sufficient to protect from DoS attacks, you really should take a look through the mailing list archives and read some of the old discussions on the issues here. Matt On 07/07/17 18:25, Sergio Demian Lerner via bitcoin-dev wrote: > Hello, > > Here is a BIP that matches the reference code that the Segwit2x group > has built and published a week ago. > > This BIP and code satisfies the requests of a large part of the Bitcoin > community for a moderate increase in the Bitcoin non-witness block space > coupled with the activation of Segwit. > > You can find the BIP draft in the following link: > > https://github.com/SergioDemianLerner/BIPs/blob/master/BIP-draft-sergiolerner-segwit2x.mediawiki > > Reference source was kindly provided by the Segwit2x group. > > Best regards, > Sergio. > > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >