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 147D0EA6 for ; Fri, 30 Mar 2018 20:52:53 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-ua0-f177.google.com (mail-ua0-f177.google.com [209.85.217.177]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 68DB4622 for ; Fri, 30 Mar 2018 20:52:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ua0-f177.google.com with SMTP id q38so5971030uad.5 for ; Fri, 30 Mar 2018 13:52:52 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=jtimon-cc.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=XgohFK2xUCyRozTGhYiazQBIZuzmcsgrxfeycSR/DnI=; b=chakjNveaY7YhCZ8v9ZoatSd7vtLqh2AYYAlBhgC801fqr8f3KBSMpoWg/UFGgaUkB ZeLf2XWhcFag3bTiN1+RSB661AaKrOW31z7MZFFgccAfleZSknqWFTdLT9Kmj3ZfBFHA GJnIcaPY2JHGPv4r2BQ0qt44DEfEm5jPz7+xVOQLDNw5CgiEAvJy+YNj3C3YXTFv1bac MaMOKhjtUz8e/7kKgy0omftqF9dOsMMA+eYghq/ECvo/jJXfeZAn/084fHsCEf6FxTTw hRgjUW+89oGJqu9tn99+UC0WNoHys4aQQCZ5ghCj9HtkY4qTxwEstG580uf2KgOPcvwG cC+g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=XgohFK2xUCyRozTGhYiazQBIZuzmcsgrxfeycSR/DnI=; b=MIJW+fimuomVIaJCNgU+6B4iJYEncEHY2MuhtYOOJzXM1Wy+sLCkJgMxEgYsciIpjn yOM0K0DxsCOrHRv2Sa4CQUTiQeZMKe45g+dkt46Lhwy8vnXJ5Nc/jm2woie4Yc9/GWB0 ta1vJzT1oxqLodHSnZlhFvhijNKqy+fnl8o/M9tRv4DLtIQmV0C4QKcBJzwTxSRKQflB 54h+nSpAGAKZ78RzEinhHhifQQDcmY9q8t1PtI9R6rKeXus5j72p3EpUxPzA+pATRpLt r2LisU5N8N7dxxztboIpT6h+TbWIRkSi59SI4xBJq6sMKEzVukuIgKAc5vYO8u89UTpi VQOw== X-Gm-Message-State: AElRT7HPdYoy4zuxDPKb25s7vMAgTBa/okmtrbPITO+JJKOHvWwr27MJ CTbuKTftiBisgFnPh/rU8fH0SXsqOu/cujXJqDT+JA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AIpwx49IEqCGGJMi528xqj2vIM1Fes7s4zutzZjBDjfWaXcDHgMyjCJtku/GyDSxhaTT0YcAR66IKtpy1VgrYZOzbLI= X-Received: by 10.176.91.146 with SMTP id y18mr340850uae.46.1522443171461; Fri, 30 Mar 2018 13:52:51 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.31.168.211 with HTTP; Fri, 30 Mar 2018 13:52:50 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2018 22:52:50 +0200 Message-ID: To: Samad Sajanlal Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, FROM_EXCESS_BASE64, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=no version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Soft Fork Activation & Enforcement w/o Signaling? 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, 30 Mar 2018 20:52:53 -0000 Yes, in fact, you don't need to lose those bits like bitcoin by imposing that the version is greater than that. But I guess just doing the same is simpler. On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 7:14 AM, Samad Sajanlal wrote: > Excellent - Thanks for your response Jorge. This helps us plan out the > future upgrades properly. > Since I see 0.15 and 0.16 use block versions as 0x20000000, whereas the > current deployed codebase (based on bitcoin 0.9.4) makes versions 0x00000= 002 > (as seen by a 0.15 client), it appears safe to activate soft forks which > require a minimum of version 3 and 4 blocks (0x00000003 and 0x00000004, > respectively). Would you agree? > > On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 7:55 AM, Jorge Tim=C3=B3n wrot= e: >> >> Yes, you can activate softforks at a given height. >> I don't see any reason why you couldn't rebase to 0.16 directly. >> The block version bumping was a mistake in bip34, you don't really >> need to bump the version number. In any case, I would recommend >> reading bip34 and what it activates in the code. IIRC the last thing >> was bip65. >> >> On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 11:04 PM, Samad Sajanlal via bitcoin-dev >> wrote: >> > Is it possible to activate soft forks such as BIP65 and BIP66 without >> > prior >> > signaling from miners? I noticed in chainparams.cpp that there are blo= ck >> > heights where the enforcement begins. >> > >> > I understand this is already active on bitcoin. I'm working on a proje= ct >> > that is a clone of a clone of bitcoin, and we currently do not have >> > BIP65 or >> > BIP66 enforced - no signaling of these soft forks either (most of the >> > network is on a source code fork of bitcoin 0.9). This project does no= t >> > and >> > never intends to attempt to replace bitcoin - we know that without >> > bitcoin >> > our project could never exist, so we owe a great deal of gratitude to >> > the >> > bitcoin developers. >> > >> > If the entire network upgrades to the correct version of the software >> > (based >> > on bitcoin 0.15), which includes the block height that has enforcement= , >> > can >> > we simply skip over the signaling and go straight into >> > activation/enforcement? >> > >> > At this time we are lucky that our network is very small, so it is >> > reasonable to assume that the whole network will upgrade their clients >> > within a short window (~2 weeks). We would schedule the activation ~2 >> > months >> > out from when the client is released, just to ensure everyone has time >> > to >> > upgrade. >> > >> > We have been stuck on the 0.9 code branch and my goal is to bring it u= p >> > to >> > 0.15 at least, so that we can implement Segwit and other key features >> > that >> > bitcoin has introduced. The 0.15 client currently works with regards t= o >> > sending and receiving transactions but the soft forks are not active. = I >> > understand that activating them will segregate the 0.15 clients onto >> > their >> > own fork, which is why I'd like to understand the repercussions of doi= ng >> > it >> > without any signaling beforehand. I also would prefer not to have to >> > make >> > intermediate releases such as 0.10, 0.11.. etc to get the soft forks >> > activated. >> > >> > Another related question - does the block version get bumped up >> > automatically at the time that a soft fork activates, or is there >> > additional >> > stuff that I need to do within the code to ensure it bumps up at the >> > same >> > time? From what I saw in the code it appears that it will bump up >> > automatically, but I would like some confirmation on that. >> > >> > Regards, >> > Samad >> > >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > bitcoin-dev mailing list >> > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org >> > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >> > > >