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 D3824BCB for ; Mon, 3 Apr 2017 14:40:25 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-yb0-f177.google.com (mail-yb0-f177.google.com [209.85.213.177]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5507A24C for ; Mon, 3 Apr 2017 14:40:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-yb0-f177.google.com with SMTP id i124so34744493ybc.3 for ; Mon, 03 Apr 2017 07:40:25 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=PEZcQinnffC3/VvG0mYrm4Vx96XHXoYc8VF7slykAzk=; b=h0ZQzu1ZQhxugzdxHxtAE7eZ88RtfxFxLT/a7PlrNM5HvQDesRb9bQfjE2oNCWbIg7 C2Gg/jO+p4Kd64/eKAAruZAj68gyMU3SMQaysci6TI7/kmyg7y4xmCUynoFPI6b5uDun cqahZ3nGjImvIswLB/3v2AJxrP1Yxh7oWxWRORQYLlP0WwXbh7np1cFX8Yeiqv9qQKIJ abO3snRC4T9Fy2EjrOHZapcSnux3OR2xO7obhOpZmGiYp6L+k6s7Y5woQH3aOvZwqAq8 A1mP63Y0fOyPquDvZb+JHXk3lCrO3wH7lGbxe8Inl2cK8xKf7OQ8kGEOj/bblrSK0O63 9GJA== 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; bh=PEZcQinnffC3/VvG0mYrm4Vx96XHXoYc8VF7slykAzk=; b=mjIPZuOGW8faKNSJEBkYwINmgwkSN2Tzpi4BOyhaFqNtEM+zuPCR8B4oRQ1QQWIjSb LpOuczhsFjLtNjyDgwRV8OvHJoiZdkUKFHWubWQOHrypsvwhKUDrW7Ht64ub4oAVQbS9 s+CTU8+xuqpbozver7xh0QhRDIg1ZudAmnTwYKrCRz9Ze91y8jcC+G4qmYf8Qgi55ZQ4 vz+m1l7cX2L5L8ah/uya3dZwMF1/47kJxVOMUBPQewNf4g/LGg4+jBV1ndS2yXU0e1Bj MCNjEYBTJjCJYGx/7dzt0Y5pRUATQKQYa26rzdOiWkPWeqy0vWRpVqXTG7nj0Sz8U8aK GFpA== X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H315zP8f4SDXwFiw32z5HZWXQmQAK/zdUYf+8Kn0chKIEzM0xg3hwsUJf3l9KNkgmo3NE+OMvpXTjGJLA== X-Received: by 10.129.40.141 with SMTP id o135mr11937183ywo.166.1491230424470; Mon, 03 Apr 2017 07:40:24 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.13.222.135 with HTTP; Mon, 3 Apr 2017 07:40:04 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Btc Drak Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 15:40:04 +0100 Message-ID: To: Sergio Demian Lerner , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a114087a8ba9c61054c44233f X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, HK_RANDOM_ENVFROM, HK_RANDOM_FROM, HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM autolearn=no version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 03 Apr 2017 15:01:58 +0000 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Segwit2Mb - combined soft/hard fork - Request For Comments 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: Mon, 03 Apr 2017 14:40:26 -0000 --001a114087a8ba9c61054c44233f Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 10:09 PM, Sergio Demian Lerner via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > The hard-fork is conditional to 95% of the hashing power has approved the > segwit2mb soft-fork and the segwit soft-fork has been activated (which > should occur 2016 blocks after its lock-in time) > Miners signalling they have upgraded by flipping a bit in the nVersion field has little relevance in a hard fork. If 100% of the hash power indicates they are running this proposal, but the nodes don't upgrade, what will happen? For the record, I actually talk a lot about hard forks with various developers and am very interested in the research that Johnson in particular is pioneering. However, I have failed to understand your point about 95% miner signalling in relation to a hard fork, so I am eagerly awaiting your explanation. --001a114087a8ba9c61054c44233f Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On F= ri, Mar 31, 2017 at 10:09 PM, Sergio Demian Lerner via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
The hard-fork is con= ditional to 95% of the hashing power has approved the segwit2mb soft-fork a= nd the segwit soft-fork has been activated (which should occur 2016 blocks = after its lock-in time)

Miners = signalling they have upgraded by flipping a bit in the nVersion field has l= ittle relevance in a hard fork. If 100% of the hash power indicates they ar= e running this proposal, but the nodes don't upgrade, what will happen?=

For the record, I actually talk a lot about h= ard forks with various developers and am very interested in the research th= at Johnson in particular is pioneering. However, I have failed to understan= d your point about 95% miner signalling in relation to a hard fork, so I am= eagerly awaiting your explanation.
--001a114087a8ba9c61054c44233f--