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 BDABA8E8 for ; Wed, 19 Aug 2015 18:17:17 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-qk0-f182.google.com (mail-qk0-f182.google.com [209.85.220.182]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 52FB4102 for ; Wed, 19 Aug 2015 18:17:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: by qkfh127 with SMTP id h127so5263957qkf.1 for ; Wed, 19 Aug 2015 11:17:15 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=JZl4DTB17RXnMg0vtUWCOD4e0pB9vpMLU7QFcVUeqBg=; b=xO7NHVoqMysu3n9fF73w3BPuGM9bpEjLa10TqJDAjSFqi9kR+BPjBDk106TnrqiB07 RoOTzyhZ5vUdRrXeNarjwS2AdU+cBBmDWfvfD+hlzXh27Nc8b98g/jy1frSNqSNsaJXH 2qywv8M0nUwLSDKJPa6CWjHpmWhBpyTmRxx/t2hDaIum7quj4sM4/KQt8eXo0KuOsSUN WR9A6g/Xzj9PwlmqI3OAbL/+qKoxma57FOgCcWvfScSL37TFOAdWmkf259sNTlKcwBnS F47Z1//mjqnMpkVYiUI8KfU7HZ9PD3yz12s8m3gvm6eZDCJiu0W2mPzeNl+IK9dQg0J+ oZGQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.55.215.144 with SMTP id t16mr25057008qkt.107.1440008235703; Wed, 19 Aug 2015 11:17:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.140.31.181 with HTTP; Wed, 19 Aug 2015 11:17:15 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <20150819055036.GA19595@muck> Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2015 19:17:15 +0100 Message-ID: From: Tier Nolan To: Btc Drak Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a114661985ce5bc051dae0b0e X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW 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 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] CLTV/CSV/etc. deployment considerations due to XT/Not-BitcoinXT miners X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2015 18:17:17 -0000 --001a114661985ce5bc051dae0b0e Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 6:25 PM, Btc Drak wrote: > In our case for Bitcoin Core, option 2 we use nVersion=8, apply a > bitmask of 0xdffffff8 thus: > > if ((block.nVersion & ~0x20000007) >= 4 && > CBlockIndex::IsSuperMajority(...)) { //...} > > With nVersion=8, but using comparison >=4 allows us to recover the > bit later, assuming we want it (otherwise we use version >=8). > That is the 75% "activation" rule portion? The 95% rule has to apply to all blocks. The supermajority applies to unmasked blocks? I think you want it so that a sequence of blocks with version 8 can be followed by version 4 blocks? If 950 of the last 1000 blocks have bit 0x08 set, then reject any block with a version less than 4. This means transitioning to the version bits BIP just requires dropping the version back to 4 and adding a rule enforcing the BIPs for version 4 and higher blocks. This would be part of the version bits BIP enforcement. --001a114661985ce5bc051dae0b0e Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On W= ed, Aug 19, 2015 at 6:25 PM, Btc Drak <btcdrak@gmail.com> wr= ote:
In our case for Bitcoin Core, option 2 we use nVersion=3D8, apply a
bitmask of 0xdffffff8 thus:

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 if ((block.nVersion & ~0x20000007) >=3D 4 && CBlockIndex::IsSuperMajority(...)) { //...}

With nVersion=3D8, but using comparison >=3D4 allows us to recover the bit later, assuming we want it (otherwise we use version >=3D8).

That is the 75% "activation" rule po= rtion?=C2=A0 The 95% rule has to apply to all blocks.

The supermajority applies to unmasked blocks?

I t= hink you want it so that a sequence of blocks with version 8 can be followe= d by version 4 blocks?

If 950 of the last 1000 blocks hav= e bit 0x08 set, then reject any block with a version less than 4.

This means transitioning to the version bits BIP just requires dro= pping the version back to 4 and adding a rule enforcing the BIPs for versio= n 4 and higher blocks.

This would be part of the version = bits BIP enforcement.
--001a114661985ce5bc051dae0b0e--