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 ADB0FB4C for ; Tue, 11 Apr 2017 21:25:47 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-ua0-f171.google.com (mail-ua0-f171.google.com [209.85.217.171]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1290D179 for ; Tue, 11 Apr 2017 21:25:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ua0-f171.google.com with SMTP id 49so6059816uau.2 for ; Tue, 11 Apr 2017 14:25:46 -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; bh=BDlgrcNfx3axqpnhVxmPOYjmcfCq3a/0stYGVabEs4o=; b=O6jjgYmLYQNEsdTnnVruy6hVTo94Aq2bj8Sy+iD2ntQZTZDthfDrPFge2dCp490vhG 8fFoSH0dOL58eAanKmjAlFTqkoTQz51DYiMc0/tiPT74is8aQJmI7hYM0bxbJtEukA5A urBBM+Vt9OxPspTyDvYEf0Z2SyBfgk86xDNY6nXhcrixF4d5KpjLZNk+vJlajSo4mEth a2P2b7WmnvwikilQIqrbIMX/TA8Ef2ouLEr/T4oodPpCBP6RSiuxvqZyayzeglNSNfn7 RpSPmAweeIGLAlUFAovoyyU2+nvTHiGxYQ9+tfbvgt6GsSWHUdX2vb2u6oGDR3jeZp9W em2Q== 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; bh=BDlgrcNfx3axqpnhVxmPOYjmcfCq3a/0stYGVabEs4o=; b=c4FqbDQDUvFHbn7rXHBRoCkgO0YNNxmcFKPHDyo9OlwvZUOp9RB0cDDASXzrudsmmO rArv7zJWq+Afr4vvRMB7DMHw759Oxce4j3Xinj4opA1Bb6IGjZmdA5fS/LlMMTTrwYyZ wmvb5FUM5TMOzHvoBzRsr/NTqKJHynpl+7gkhTfa7DXzWUA9r3ql4cpz+SOPM7TltLpN 54S1+owRZDw54FQ9tU83uqaGvnZ7hc0E/ib/DdvDLpoLK4vmW4x9UTJwitpEjh6CMDyd XBcV/8uVILguFEfV+s+VHQWunG8md9aoCIH5VKQhyegINYLD4MIxHnwTtO9z7IdrYtJw 95lg== X-Gm-Message-State: AN3rC/6LvKDl5oXKwvrRVvFxqz7pUd+jCngnGjcJWYP3LdzdgBJzlovOcK+9+QQKjUcxsLJhR0jV5Vk9wEte9Q== X-Received: by 10.176.85.92 with SMTP id u28mr5290857uaa.55.1491945946145; Tue, 11 Apr 2017 14:25:46 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.31.151.136 with HTTP; Tue, 11 Apr 2017 14:25:45 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <2151650.Y6dYBXdtR5@strawberry> <04bbsNGwBdLiye5VgB_cNxkCNiOSNJBWFpI2QbN_o_ZQWRLEU7FjgkfOi5DZXrrBeQIuacMn_JHGzzX4dCmoyjmpT6PI9GZDu3JDgpgT4Pw=@protonmail.com> From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2017 23:25:45 +0200 Message-ID: To: Jimmy Song Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE 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] A Small Modification to Segwit 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: Tue, 11 Apr 2017 21:25:47 -0000 On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 4:40 PM, Jimmy Song via bitcoin-dev wrote: > I've changed the proposal so only 8 bits are given to grinding so something > like 20 bits are available for signaling. > > I have to say I'm at a loss here as to what's next? Should I make a new BIP > or try to convince the authors of BIP141 to modify their BIP? Could someone > inform me on the next part of the process? See bip2, specifically https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0002.mediawiki#bip-workflow "Following a discussion, the proposal should be submitted to the BIPs git repository as a pull request. This draft must be written in BIP style as described below, and named with an alias such as "bip-johndoe-infinitebitcoins" until the editor has assigned it a BIP number (authors MUST NOT self-assign BIP numbers)." But I think it's kind of late to modify bip141, given that there's code out there with the current specification. I guess you can propose extensions or alternatives to replace it. I'm really not sure what's the next step, but I don't think you have provided enough motivation as to why we would want to maintain asicboost. You said it makes the network more secure, but that's not the case, as explained, not even if all honest miners use it. > On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 8:25 AM, Sancho Panza via bitcoin-dev > wrote: >> >> Tom Zander wrote: >> >> > The version field is still needed to actually allow future block version >> > upgrades. We would cut off our road forward if that were to be blocked. >> >> I tend to agree, if all 32 bits were given up to grinding. >> >> But it's worth pointing out that BIP9 is purely informational, and the top >> 3 bits are still reserved for other purposes. One of them could perhaps be >> used to signal for an extended version field somewhere else, leaving the >> bottom 29 as entropy? >> >> Not a direction I prefer, but just a technical possibility perhaps. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 >