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 DBC911421 for ; Thu, 17 Sep 2015 10:38:30 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-vk0-f53.google.com (mail-vk0-f53.google.com [209.85.213.53]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4A442103 for ; Thu, 17 Sep 2015 10:38:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: by vkfp126 with SMTP id p126so8088800vkf.3 for ; Thu, 17 Sep 2015 03:38:29 -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 :content-type; bh=6XhZd/rWw8lfgbWvpW3AGEb9hNh/I4dO/sw5pMQl96s=; b=MmiF+/Aw3ElMgUKoNn+Hc75oqTx6uv6o+gdzlxYxqZ2ilf/gMLJL9KQm6uZGo/aHTu DtfAbYICjmxa0F9zMvyMbAji/M7ZDZ92NrNO8JdrxsmmpdnoqfY2gMw24qyS+3Tmbf2/ AmliljUa1qnqIW+YadKUhBM2Oe5IQw8bomUFCpcGTAS9HSZE52/hg5NbWEo7JI1bFUxW 97U4dOhKT2MypRKiIWBmx3Z0/LZQExnuNEuSduyuz4PZoDnR+KLvpJwPzjCBTrB9EYgS UCKhRYKp+rIyuShAeytVUXPkaEc4OFYTg46UsSXB6oOlZfRzkLNaBiXTYgraJPom9MnN 6AQg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.31.166.206 with SMTP id p197mr10094170vke.52.1442486309382; Thu, 17 Sep 2015 03:38:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.103.65.204 with HTTP; Thu, 17 Sep 2015 03:38:29 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <87mvwqb132.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> <87r3lyjewl.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2015 11:38:29 +0100 Message-ID: From: Tier Nolan To: Bitcoin Dev Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1141664c10725c051fef046d X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW, URIBL_BLACK 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] [BIP Proposal] Version bits with timeout and delay. 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: Thu, 17 Sep 2015 10:38:31 -0000 --001a1141664c10725c051fef046d Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 11:52 PM, Eric Lombrozo wrote= : > The exact numbers (95% vs. 75% etc) don't need to be completely specified > to start working on an implementation. What really matters for now is > defining the states and trigger mechanisms. I'd rather we not argue over > the optimal values for supermajority requirement at this point. > The discussion was about what each state means, not the thresholds exactly. I agree that can be set later. On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 10:03 PM, Jorge Tim=C3=B3n wrote= : > I understand your proposal, but I don't see what it accomplishes compared to applying the new rule from the start (in your own blocks) > and wait for 95% for consensus activation (which is my preference and it's much simpler to implement). > What are the disadvantages of my approach? What are the advantages of yours? I agree that miners should apply the rule from the start in their own blocks. *defined* Miners set bit Miners apply rule to their own blocks If 75% of blocks of last 2016 have bit set, goto tentative *tentative* Miners set bit Miners apply rule to their own blocks Miners enforce rule in blocks with bit set (reject invalid blocks) If 95% of blocks of last 2016 have bit set, goto locked-in *locked-in* Point of no return Miners set bit Miners apply rule to their own blocks Miners enforce rule in blocks with bit set (reject invalid blocks) After 2016 blocks goto activated *activated* Miners don't set bit Reject any block that has the bit set for 10080 blocks (10 diff periods) Reject blocks that don't follow new rule The advantage of enforcing the rule when 75% is reached (but only for blocks with the bit set) is that miners get early notification that they have implemented the rule incorrectly. They might produce blocks that they think are fine, but which aren't. --001a1141664c10725c051fef046d Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On W= ed, Sep 16, 2015 at 11:52 PM, Eric Lombrozo <elombrozo@gmail.com&g= t; wrote:
= The exact numbers (95% vs. 75% etc) don't need to be completely specifi= ed to start working on an implementation. What really matters for now is de= fining the states and trigger mechanisms. I'd rather we not argue over = the optimal values for supermajority requirement at this point.

The discussion was about what each state means, = not the thresholds exactly.=C2=A0 I agree that can be set later.

On = Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 10:03 PM, Jorge Tim=C3=B3n <jtimon@jtimon.cc> wrote:

> I understand your proposal, but I don't see what it accomplishes compare= d to applying the new rule from the start (in your own blocks)

> and wait=20 for 95% for consensus activation (which is my preference and it's much= =20 simpler to implement).
> What are the disadvantages of my approach? What are the advantages of = yours?

I agree that miners should apply the rule from the start in their= own blocks.

defined

Miners set bitMiners apply rule to their own blocks
If 75% of blocks of last 2016 hav= e bit set, goto tentative

tentative

Miners = set bit
Miners apply rule to their own blocks
Miners enforce rule in = blocks with bit set (reject invalid blocks)
If 95% of blocks = of last 2016 have bit set, goto locked-in

l= ocked-in

Point of no return
Miner= s set bit
Miners apply rule to their own blocks
Miners enforce rule i= n blocks with bit set (reject invalid blocks)
After 2016 blocks goto act= ivated

activated

Miners don'= t set bit
Reject any block that has the bit set for 10080 blocks (10 dif= f periods)
Reject blocks that don't follow new rule

The advantage of enforcing the rule when 75% is reached (but only for blo= cks with the bit set) is that miners get early notification that they have = implemented the rule incorrectly.=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 They might produce bloc= ks that they think are fine, but which aren't.
--001a1141664c10725c051fef046d--