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 0DEC81BB for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2017 22:53:35 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-qt0-f178.google.com (mail-qt0-f178.google.com [209.85.216.178]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DDF0A147 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2017 22:53:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-qt0-f178.google.com with SMTP id u19so145058235qta.3 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2017 15:53:30 -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 :cc; bh=srPjH5ej9WxcOarZCCJN6d0xgnzDBCM1+kr5uUedOdE=; b=S0TBk9WbJUaJad/WuZh9ChJ02K5VCrtHeNL7EI28ePnl2nxo/N/KgBbk3SiSxgEk9a xWL6VsB1GFhl4Eu+SgjUvdduZyOLb8EPL/FkeZAyomKGTtIDwQCCrdCzEuVSWtBSWJuT Cu3Oc9ih6kkJBPRLCu5fR2UakwR3YPpmIAJZJGgTgNKDSWaH0uDvV5cHm1OZZE25X+kv oCAutNACopmPaTNEO/zXmYcTwu13SncxXJz1gVz8uNEOfhaII4etprDhVIHR2a5Zc3iK bPDGY0wUlBIhYov/yjkYzpdzMJmd2Xi3AcTsWnNA2Pc0rNINLnJ5FS+2PPaJ5X8znAYN lGag== 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:cc; bh=srPjH5ej9WxcOarZCCJN6d0xgnzDBCM1+kr5uUedOdE=; b=sPxpLQWJTh1Y1fFS0KNIim2zkpWUK/AC2E//trxAkg7C1VNLzX1cGjwwanjK6yI62G WKN5emmm7nklkyjtf9mKP6fEQAKzs6T2iyTHqOhJDlu+D5rxwlH68fqB85XTzukFO8X0 b+0jlukLTTP9v/SE3vaqVGy8earM7bzLUrcdAtrSIBIga3pcB3cgWGowCTU5kPiQ2BMb /Uy3JIDuGLjHkz95gIkAPlQkplr4PF+KHMM+Q5FUKqvhhsHKgC0dVkx04FBIeF2RGROe RYeyPdCOOrZ6gvE9GPsuDP8Qza9d5/ACA0p5iT1WqQOofiMT3YPDWpIafG3GgrITYVYk 1PMA== X-Gm-Message-State: AKS2vOyIRo0FmvHOgh0vWhd3tEhPd4nLeY0fONTS/vUUzXHMeKDDh/jt AcjxGrVnUOPR7r4BGO0zxg8zjjwjJw== X-Received: by 10.237.61.91 with SMTP id h27mr7725463qtf.1.1497999210131; Tue, 20 Jun 2017 15:53:30 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.12.155.140 with HTTP; Tue, 20 Jun 2017 15:53:29 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: =?UTF-8?Q?Hampus_Sj=C3=B6berg?= Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 00:53:29 +0200 Message-ID: To: Gregory Maxwell Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1144bf98cb366c05526c1e46" 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 Protocol Discussion Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Miners forced to run non-core code in order to get segwit activated 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: Tue, 20 Jun 2017 22:53:35 -0000 --001a1144bf98cb366c05526c1e46 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > I think it would be useful for there to exist a useful and trivial > patch against current (0.14.2) software to engage in the BIP91-like > orphaning, like people have provided for BIP148-- but right now I > don't see any specification of the behavior so it's unclear to me > _exactly_ what it would need to implement to be consistent. I agree. This is the latest code regarding BIP91 that got merged, https://github.com/btc1/bitcoin/pull/21/files so that should be the spec we need to follow (also the old BIP91 PR: https://github.com/btc1/bitcoin/pull/17/files). Perhaps James Hilliard could give input here though. 2017-06-21 0:34 GMT+02:00 Gregory Maxwell : > On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 10:15 PM, Hampus Sj=C3=B6berg > wrote: > > Segwit2x/BIP91/BIP148 will orphan miners that do not run a Segwit2x (or > > BIP148) node, because they wouldn't have the new consensus rule of > requiring > > all blocks to signal for segwit. > > All versions of Bitcoin Core since 0.13.1 signal segwit, 0.14.1+ even > when downstream mining software doesn't support it. > > I think it would be useful for there to exist a useful and trivial > patch against current (0.14.2) software to engage in the BIP91-like > orphaning, like people have provided for BIP148-- but right now I > don't see any specification of the behavior so it's unclear to me > _exactly_ what it would need to implement to be consistent. > --001a1144bf98cb366c05526c1e46 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> I think it would be useful for there to exist a = useful and trivial
> patch against current (0.14.2) software to engag= e in the BIP91-like
> orphaning, like people have provided for BIP148= -- but right now I
> don't see any specification of the behavior = so it's unclear to me
> _exactly_ what it would need to implement= to be consistent.

I agree.
This is the lat= est code regarding BIP91 that got merged, https://github.com/btc1/bitcoin/pull/21/files = so that should be the spec we need to follow (also the old BIP91 PR: https://github.com/btc1= /bitcoin/pull/17/files).
Perhaps James Hilliard could giv= e input here though.


2017-= 06-21 0:34 GMT+02:00 Gregory Maxwell <greg@xiph.org>:
On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 10:15 PM, = Hampus Sj=C3=B6berg
<hampus.sjoberg@gmail.com> wrote:
> Segwit2x/BIP91/BIP148 will orphan miners that do not run a Segwit2x (o= r
> BIP148) node, because they wouldn't have the new consensus rule of= requiring
> all blocks to signal for segwit.

All versions of Bitcoin Core since 0.13.1 signal segwit, 0.14.1+ eve= n
when downstream mining software doesn't support it.

I think it would be useful for there to exist a useful and trivial
patch against current (0.14.2) software to engage in the BIP91-like
orphaning, like people have provided for BIP148-- but right now I
don't see any specification of the behavior so it's unclear to me _exactly_ what it would need to implement to be consistent.

--001a1144bf98cb366c05526c1e46--