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 C2C333EE for ; Sun, 2 Aug 2015 10:53:21 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-io0-f179.google.com (mail-io0-f179.google.com [209.85.223.179]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A0FEFFD for ; Sun, 2 Aug 2015 10:53:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: by ioeg141 with SMTP id g141so122072176ioe.3 for ; Sun, 02 Aug 2015 03:53:20 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=EpBIXq2V6sCM5Pt6S9Bm/+Xpa6lGuX6PIPDdR8DH2N8=; b=mtzeLQ0ku6CTczbuZ9o3mhmjHh11/joDGljZlUNnaon+MQqlQC1yvL89pyiclxwpDh tOhYLgMeMZBMFI19WCC8+59Q596wMgfVbapqvkDLG2Bo1f7RBQx4XYCnYw8/UI9AJ66K rqOYe0iUYyr6oq7a1I7X9mm0DpTuxRsz4HFiXUL3sRGt+rNsoDeUFzDngaJhEcblNlY3 gmqR3OF81REr7MXVzl3I533vm6zp+NdjdRnNTlYR+vQ7IxziMkZxc5J7dkmPfa5bZi6g fn9hWxkPYfIfoI0xiXijHUM821nzxxxzZqhhVb6unZgtaSl9/xm/gAsBsxJrPmuu1GY3 ceKA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.107.32.146 with SMTP id g140mr15010853iog.23.1438512800191; Sun, 02 Aug 2015 03:53:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.107.24.198 with HTTP; Sun, 2 Aug 2015 03:53:20 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <2c9dd1c02fc550438d4bbab29e052f34@xbt.hk> References: <20150723162321.Horde.bphh__8AhyXa_m-YAYpiyw1@server47.web-hosting.com> <20150723192633.Horde.cGMZGo9Ji0-_9HZhcSUpww5@server47.web-hosting.com> <2c9dd1c02fc550438d4bbab29e052f34@xbt.hk> Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2015 06:53:20 -0400 Message-ID: From: Michael Ruddy To: jl2012@xbt.hk Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP draft: Hardfork bit X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 02 Aug 2015 10:53:21 -0000 I think your "hardfork bit" proposal is clever. It addresses the particular valid concern of re-org facing users of a fork that a small/near/fluctuating majority, or less, of mining power supported. While the "economic majority" argument may be enough on its own in that case, it still has some aspect of being a hand wave. This proposal adds support to those economic actors, which makes it easier for them to switch if/when they choose. That is, it provides a good fallback mechanism that allows them to make a decision and say, "we're doing this". Do you have the latest version up on github, or someplace where it would be easier to collaborate on the specific text? On Sat, Aug 1, 2015 at 4:23 PM, wrote: > Although the chance is very slim, it is possible to have multiple hardforks > sharing the same flag block. For example, different proposals may decide the > flag time based on voting result and 2 proposals may have the same flag time > just by chance. The coinbase message is to preclude any potential ambiguity. > It also provides additional info to warning system of non-upgrading nodes. > > If we are pretty sure that there won't be other hardfork proposal at the > same time, the coinbase message may not be necessary. With some prior > collaboration, this may also be avoided (e.g. no sharing flag block allowed > as consensus rules of the hardforks) > > The "version 0" idea is not compatible with the version bits voting system, > so I have this hardfork bit BIP after thinking more carefully. Otherwise > they are technically similar.