From: "Jorge Timón" <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
To: Martijn Meijering <martijn.meijering@mevs.nl>
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP149 timeout-- why so far in the future?
Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2017 16:29:08 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CABm2gDrqrfGxB8zJNDu8B4yz8YVoD-0hs753ZexGC6=Dhybe3w@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAODYVYc7x-C5nLxtTHYh9iJuCgv0B7XADCS7DeSW8O8VMuGvbQ@mail.gmail.com>
On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 3:44 PM, Martijn Meijering via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Jorge Timón wrote:
> Why not just make sure BIP 149 will never activate unless BIP 141 has
> expired unsuccessfully?
Right, that would be part of it, as well as not removing the BIP141
deployment with bip9.
See https://github.com/jtimon/bitcoin/commit/62efd741740f5c75c43d78358d6318941e6d3c04
> If BIP 141 should unexpectly activate, then
> BIP 149 nodes would notice and act as pre-SegWit nodes indefinitely,
> but remain in consensus with BIP 141 nodes.
>
> It might be slightly less convenient for BIP 149 users to upgrade
> again, but then at least we could start deploying BIP 149 sooner.
No, if segwit activates pre nov15, bip149 nodse can detect and
interpret that just fine.
The problem if it activates post nov15, then you need a separate
service bit in the p2p network, for pre-BIP149 will think sw hasn't
activated while post-BIP149 would know it has activated.
If you release it only after nov15, you don't need to test
compatibility between the two for neither of this two cases.
Or do you? Actually you only save testing the easier case of pre-nov15
activation.
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-06-11 14:29 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-06-11 13:44 [bitcoin-dev] BIP149 timeout-- why so far in the future? Martijn Meijering
2017-06-11 14:29 ` Jorge Timón [this message]
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2017-05-23 17:50 Gregory Maxwell
2017-05-24 4:26 ` Rusty Russell
2017-05-26 20:04 ` Matt Corallo
2017-05-27 1:19 ` Rusty Russell
2017-06-11 5:48 ` Ryan Grant
2017-06-11 13:17 ` Jorge Timón
2017-05-26 7:28 ` shaolinfry
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='CABm2gDrqrfGxB8zJNDu8B4yz8YVoD-0hs753ZexGC6=Dhybe3w@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=jtimon@jtimon.cc \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=martijn.meijering@mevs.nl \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox