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 F15E6A81 for ; Sun, 16 Oct 2016 20:14:37 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-yw0-f178.google.com (mail-yw0-f178.google.com [209.85.161.178]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1C41A122 for ; Sun, 16 Oct 2016 20:14:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-yw0-f178.google.com with SMTP id w3so103546411ywg.1 for ; Sun, 16 Oct 2016 13:14:37 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=nsHsmqFHyRx66zzWYRmrAk5cKstvuZJMphdsfBT/saI=; b=SkjA89+1yPcs1wz6Xs7F38SLKfatztcIClKlQKMCRsJhiS6Axi/qoT0djmH1aczMHn XPaB0yJtYjbo+RHYZAXUpkCgnQ/5MS1u+q39bXKDKXQhMuSDcnprLqh6Re/pakxdTEB6 xewncKm8MT9WEFMWW0eW86jWyJwzY1Ja/N+flEcrv6ItmuKmgQfld+0Nx9lCxbXAO/1H 5L0fZPHFUmazMsSEtYDo2p6nSJxMCMBKqh0L++nvdub7xb6A+6X+5BALSkS82W05kZFA 2BEQ8dvo5d3aXlaicRITBNZ3TRfvED1uOrxOi9vEtJGx6FqcZuSZG+zdPMNSPXZ4IR0w +HIA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=nsHsmqFHyRx66zzWYRmrAk5cKstvuZJMphdsfBT/saI=; b=XLvR/tWN5s7fvTLDQhRAi6ck7qHRiJeWvqupMyg8Ogz26SysL0yYw/euRJbW8XYTbT lTzMt+4DdP9XCURln0DFRr+qgme0m2SZ2KcMEafeAYkvZvijOdRE1PQgh0j+U8pv1HWn 78bQPWOe/lcNjZBcBU5HBlCaV/RDzfR23fOUv2Yuf5pVra4y2xH8dIA0grxE3ZsFSCwn BAbe1LL84r4BEWa1o6kHAUwKK8uw/HTlEkiOVPV4GfSplsbrDU5KmPfsZIh6NevcK7CA CoS6CIpry4JlC+1/x36qfNyEeNT+g6cyW9wV+8I1Y9zS+OaajSCU/cP9dl23FwUSaFHu clnQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AA6/9Rkt7TucZ3BYnEzkXkmCP8GHv8O4RmRKQaIofDZr1K5+ZsuX4mOU3ziBQu2kFiJADdql1F7KImDRzH6vjA== X-Received: by 10.129.41.133 with SMTP id p127mr21261977ywp.154.1476648876315; Sun, 16 Oct 2016 13:14:36 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.129.167.74 with HTTP; Sun, 16 Oct 2016 13:14:15 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <2034434.4WpKWoeOrB@strawberry> References: <2d5abad7-cd9d-4396-4dd2-c687a1a808dc@vt.edu> <2034434.4WpKWoeOrB@strawberry> From: Btc Drak Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2016 21:14:15 +0100 Message-ID: To: Tom Zander , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11407e72bb2567053f011b8d X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, HK_RANDOM_ENVFROM, HTML_MESSAGE, 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 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 16 Oct 2016 20:15:19 +0000 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Start time for BIP141 (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: Sun, 16 Oct 2016 20:14:38 -0000 --001a11407e72bb2567053f011b8d Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 I can see how it looks but actually most of the underlying libraries have already been adapted or are almost finished being adapted for segwit. Since segwit is not live on mainnet, most are not released (either still in PR form or merged to a development branch). As a software developer, I think you can appreciate that libraries cant actually release a segwit supported versions until segwit is released as final in 0.13.1. Obviously consumers of the libraries cant update for segwit until the libraries are released - you get the idea. I wouldn't be too concerned about the adoption chart, it's just very difficult to reflect the actual state of affairs. For example Trezor is marked as wip, but they have had an updated, but unreleased firmware version for many months[1]. We are in the process of planning a migration guide and updating the existing development notes[2]. Additionally, many companies are already planning to update their services for segwit. Regarding BIP9, it's purpose is to co-ordinate *miner upgrade* and activation. The starttime delay is simply designed to avoid miners signalling before the soft fork has been made available for general release; so the starttime prevents unreleased software from setting the version bit prematurely. The whole BIP9 state machine allows predictable activation. Non mining full nodes are under no constraints to upgrade on a specific schedule, which is by design of soft forks. Signalling will not begin until the first diff retarget period after the starttime of 15th Nov. Practically it means there will be a minimum of 4-6 weeks at the very least before activation can happen. [1] https://github.com/bitcoin-core/bitcoincore.org/pull/30#issu ecomment-217329474 [2] https://bitcoincore.org/en/segwit_wallet_dev/ On Sun, Oct 16, 2016 at 7:20 PM, Tom Zander via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > On Sunday, 16 October 2016 09:47:40 CEST Douglas Roark via bitcoin-dev > wrote: > > Would I want anyone to lose money due to faulty wallets? Of course not. > > By the same token, devs have had almost a year to tinker with SegWit and > > make sure the wallet isn't so poorly written that it'll flame out when > > SegWit comes along. It's not like this is some untested, mostly unknown > > feature that's being slipped out at the last minute > > There have been objections to the way that SegWit has been implemented for > a > long time, some wallets are taking a "wait and see" approach. If you look > at the page you linked[1], that is a very very sad state of affairs. The > vast majority is not ready. Would be interesting to get a more up-to-date > view. > Wallets probably won't want to invest resources adding support for a > feature > that will never be activated. The fact that we have a much safer > alternative > in the form of Flexible Transactions may mean it will not get activated. We > won't know until its actually locked in. > Wallets may not act until its actually locked in either. And I think we > should respect that. > > Even if all wallets support it (and thats a big if), they need to be rolled > out and people need to actually download those updates. > This takes time, 2 months after the lock-in of SegWit would be the minimum > safe time for people to actually upgrade. > > 1) https://bitcoincore.org/en/segwit_adoption/ > -- > Tom Zander > Blog: https://zander.github.io > Vlog: https://vimeo.com/channels/tomscryptochannel > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > --001a11407e72bb2567053f011b8d Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I can see how it looks but actually most of the underlying= libraries have already been adapted or are almost finished being adapted f= or segwit. Since segwit is not live on mainnet, most are not released (eith= er still in PR form or merged to a development branch). As a software devel= oper, I think you can appreciate that libraries cant actually release a seg= wit supported versions until segwit is released as final in 0.13.1. Obvious= ly consumers of the libraries cant update for segwit until the libraries ar= e released - you get the idea. I wouldn't be too concerned about the ad= option chart, it's just very difficult to reflect the actual state of a= ffairs. For example Trezor is marked as wip, but they have had an updated, = but unreleased firmware version for many months[1]. We are in the process o= f planning a migration guide and updating the existing development notes[2]= . Additionally, many companies are already planning to update their service= s for segwit.

Regarding BIP9, it's purpose is to co-= ordinate *miner upgrade* and activation. The starttime delay is simply desi= gned to avoid miners signalling before the soft fork has been made availabl= e for general release; so the starttime prevents unreleased software from s= etting the version bit prematurely. The whole BIP9 state machine allows pre= dictable activation. Non mining full nodes are under no constraints to upgr= ade on a specific schedule, which is by design of soft forks. Signalling wi= ll not begin until the first diff retarget period after the starttime of 15= th Nov. Practically it means there will be a minimum of 4-6 weeks at the ve= ry least before activation can happen.

[1] https://github.com/bitcoin-core/bitcoi= ncore.org/pull/30#issuecomment-217329474
[2]=C2=A0h= ttps://bitcoincore.org/en/segwit_wallet_dev/

On Sun, Oct 16, 2016 = at 7:20 PM, Tom Zander via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@li= sts.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
On Sunday, 16 October 2016 09:47:40 CEST Douglas Roark via bitcoin-dev=
wrote:
> Would I want anyone to lose money due to faulty walle= ts? Of course not.
> By the same token, devs have had almost a year to tinker with SegWit a= nd
> make sure the wallet isn't so poorly written that it'll flame = out when
> SegWit comes along. It's not like this is some untested, mostly un= known
> feature that's being slipped out at the last minute

There have been objections to the way that SegWit has been implement= ed for a
long time, some wallets are taking a "wait and see" approach.=C2= =A0 If you look
at the page you linked[1], that is a very very sad state of affairs. The vast majority is not ready.=C2=A0 Would be interesting to get a more up-to-= date
view.
Wallets probably won't want to invest resources adding support for a fe= ature
that will never be activated. The fact that we have a much safer alternativ= e
in the form of Flexible Transactions may mean it will not get activated. We=
won't know until its actually locked in.
Wallets may not act until its actually locked in either. And I think we
should respect that.

Even if all wallets support it (and thats a big if), they need to be rolled=
out and people need to actually download those updates.
This takes time, 2 months after the lock-in of SegWit would be the minimum<= br> safe time for people to actually upgrade.

1) https://bitcoincore.org/en/segwit_adoption/ --
Tom Zander
Blog: https://zander.github.io
Vlog: https://vimeo.com/channels/tomscryptochannel<= /a>
____________________________= ___________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.= linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org= /mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

--001a11407e72bb2567053f011b8d--