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 09960957 for ; Wed, 19 Aug 2015 13:24:28 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-qk0-f178.google.com (mail-qk0-f178.google.com [209.85.220.178]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7860E89 for ; Wed, 19 Aug 2015 13:24:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: by qkcv6 with SMTP id v6so1833413qkc.0 for ; Wed, 19 Aug 2015 06:24:26 -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:cc :content-type; bh=pTyLq+0UsCvfxpYMqr7G9LwWXbfGX7U8irt6H8MOEB8=; b=sDjHspGKYG4agytZ5XERisPMxWfJrkYlqH64JdooVhmWsDzeJDIDWVDRVQ0wveYNIS 6pbd0eXqb5okqN1fmy/9tAJvzTNGKRIQnu5hhkAXNltzBw8wrybsud3mSIytjoj90cK4 GwyuwWONi6/wY0AtIUnnPbAnyx/pnsx70i0euKlMtKXnG94mBKrqMXDE5tZH77p0pG1O K0umi1qoJ0Yyob4WzAjd5i1f3fJ2TU/Od7CB+DPUmZfnpSF9BAnQQDuq9uBFfVrpFydi LbKx3UpLQ1bu1Il5ef+VHCR2nc+b1ohDIV6NqC8R6mo0bIXrREk+TkBQl7qU4W2NiNbJ QFPw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.55.214.216 with SMTP id p85mr22605900qkl.93.1439990666687; Wed, 19 Aug 2015 06:24:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.140.31.181 with HTTP; Wed, 19 Aug 2015 06:24:26 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <20150819055036.GA19595@muck> Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2015 14:24:26 +0100 Message-ID: From: Tier Nolan Cc: Bitcoin Dev Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1149b0f82af886051da9f4f6 X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, HTML_MESSAGE, MALFORMED_FREEMAIL, MISSING_HEADERS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=no version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org 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 13:24:28 -0000 --001a1149b0f82af886051da9f4f6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 2:15 PM, Btc Drak via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > What problem am I missing if we just mask of the offending bits. For my > own project which uses auxpow (and thus has weird nVersion), I also used > the bitmasking method to get rid of auxpow version bits before making the > standard integer comparisons to deploy BIP66 using IsSuperMajority(): > > if ((block.nVersion & 0xff) >= 4 && CBlockIndex::IsSuperMajority(...)) > { //...} > What if version number 257 is used in the future? That would appear to be a version 1 block and fail the test. --001a1149b0f82af886051da9f4f6 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 2:15 PM, Btc Drak via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
What problem am I missing if we just mask of th= e offending bits. For my own project which uses auxpow (and thus has weird = nVersion), I also used the bitmasking method to get rid of auxpow version b= its before making the standard integer comparisons to deploy BIP66 using Is= SuperMajority():

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

What if version number= 257 is used in the future?=C2=A0 That would appear to be a version 1 block= and fail the test.
--001a1149b0f82af886051da9f4f6--