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 CB935AEF for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2017 22:16:02 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-qt0-f181.google.com (mail-qt0-f181.google.com [209.85.216.181]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CD3FC1F2 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2017 22:16:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-qt0-f181.google.com with SMTP id u19so144541152qta.3 for ; Tue, 20 Jun 2017 15:16:01 -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=MgHQtpFKVpvjGE/bsULH4lt0/cJvTbkSK2ti9+T9Vbo=; b=d2cmdE3S6z0bFu9Fyu9EbcDv0XAzAs5p3M1VK8+ZekiMD+vHFIOLDA0Qknyp0o6MGA JunFTZxkyLsLvzs/TJl55Fz/q0CSPgRRdUO4FoiqklTgbj0Q65KhXnt5hb7xZ82qWHGX m3m1GYH0Z/z6Vt0yj7HwKN7x1nRrSPRHNw970LGXUGoGIspr9YtB5q1OnOOea122D9Ny BJ34RxuCvSNOtrUo+x6aWVd5leMjoFL12GSqIpDfWH+/LSWnFTCq1/zCvGWYyzrdkNKi 518xHVc/fp9exIlwppb7ta5R1jbu4C0torpQAzwrTGTf7TxXSTiY17ib9e/OqcDrWjyj a7sQ== 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=MgHQtpFKVpvjGE/bsULH4lt0/cJvTbkSK2ti9+T9Vbo=; b=aFfLO6uC5B9m3H5bymSIn3xkGIZERorVmrHMDMDYGB65QCAJYcceCMrWCLSRYxqQZU /fAqyk5fhHpzKcI9SmKZvZcU8EBhrz4rMqP5Ey5UyEGMC5l0llUV5dQfM5pHREurUVdZ QIayvoaxUy0jVZ942kJumfbn6wiuDtOMBx9Cty7YlXSFnR1+F2H5Fy4lHQSxcjYIqHEp SpISKi5d2SOuPzyMXsTFYr2EvSq4pa/b1f7Tb/OOcdMFF7jE5j28fMB8hMfRr530JIqD 8Q8jFFOa6Qdq/xX9tQ7RB27FSU+R8Ymr97O48VDjPIcNDgSuNbLGVaOt0gcdGGHBQFOS oYag== X-Gm-Message-State: AKS2vOwr9WZhLf5oqprmnZMPDOiapeIcHRCuD4oyg1L9HZo22iPM1cDJ PAGeF78yfhVKJSS23j1nY6SRJ1gZYg== X-Received: by 10.237.44.166 with SMTP id g35mr38172257qtd.212.1497996960966; Tue, 20 Jun 2017 15:16:00 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.12.155.140 with HTTP; Tue, 20 Jun 2017 15:15:59 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: =?UTF-8?Q?Hampus_Sj=C3=B6berg?= Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 00:15:59 +0200 Message-ID: To: Gregory Maxwell Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c12526abbaf1605526b98a5" 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 22:16:02 -0000 --94eb2c12526abbaf1605526b98a5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > Ironically, it looks like most of the segwit2x signaling miners are > faking it (because they're not signaling segwit which it requires). > It'll be unfortunate if some aren't faking it and start orphaning > their own blocks because they are failing to signal segwit. Well, they're doing some kind of "pre-signaling" in the coinbase at the moment, because the segwit2x project is still in alpha-phase according to the timeline. They're just showing commitment. I'm sure they will begin signaling on version bit 4/BIP91 as well as actually running a segwit2x node when the time comes. > As far as prevent a chain split goes, all those things > (148/91/segwit2x(per today)) effectively guarantee a chainsplit-- so I > don't think that holds. 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. I don't believe there would be any long lasting chainsplit though (because of the ~80% hashrate support on segwit2x), perhaps 2-3 blocks if we get unlucky. Hampus 2017-06-20 23:49 GMT+02:00 Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>: > On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 3:44 PM, Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev > wrote: > > Because a large percentage of miners are indifferent, right now miners > have > > to choose between BIP148 and Segwit2x if they want to activate Segwit. > > Miners can simply continuing signaling segwit, which will leave them > at least soft-fork compatible with BIP148 and BIP91 (and god knows > what "segwit2x" is since they keep changing the actual definition and > do not have a specification; but last I saw the near-term behavior the > same as BIP91 but with a radically reduced activation window, so the > story would be the same there in the near term). > > Ironically, it looks like most of the segwit2x signaling miners are > faking it (because they're not signaling segwit which it requires). > It'll be unfortunate if some aren't faking it and start orphaning > their own blocks because they are failing to signal segwit. > > I don't think the rejection of segwit2x from Bitcoin's developers > could be any more resolute than what we've already seen: > https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Segwit_support > > On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 5:22 PM, Mark Friedenbach via bitcoin-dev > wrote: > > I think it is very na=C3=AFve to assume that any shift would be tempora= ry. > > We have a hard enough time getting miners to proactively upgrade to > > recent versions of the reference bitcoin daemon. If miners interpret > > the situation as being forced to run non-reference software in order > > to prevent a chain split because a lack of support from Bitcoin Core, > > that could be a one-way street. > > I think this is somewhat naive and sounds a lot like the repeat of the > previously debunked "XT" and "Classic" hysteria. > > There is a reason that segwit2x is pretty much unanimously rejected by > the technical community. And just like with XT/Classic/Unlimited > you'll continue to see a strong correlation with people who are > unwilling and unable to keep updating the software at an acceptable > level of quality-- esp. because the very founding on their fork is > predicated on discarding those properties. > > If miners want to go off and create an altcoin-- welp, thats something > they can always do, and nothing about that will force anyone to go > along with it. > > As far as prevent a chain split goes, all those things > (148/91/segwit2x(per today)) effectively guarantee a chainsplit-- so I > don't think that holds. > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > --94eb2c12526abbaf1605526b98a5 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> Ironically, it looks like most of= the segwit2x signaling miners are
> faking it (because they're n= ot signaling segwit which it requires).
> It'll be unfortunate if some aren't faking it and start orphan= ing
> their own blocks because they are failing to signal segwit.

Well, they're doing some kind of "pre-signaling" in the co= inbase at the moment, because the segwit2x project is still in alpha-phase = according to the timeline. They're just showing commitment.
I'm = sure they will begin signaling on version bit 4/BIP91 as well as actually r= unning a segwit2x node when the time comes.

> As far as prevent a= chain split goes, all those things
> (148/91/segwit2x(per today)) ef= fectively guarantee a chainsplit-- so I
> don't think that holds.=

Segwit2x/BIP91/BIP148 will orphan miners that do not run a S= egwit2x (or BIP148) node, because they wouldn't have the new consensus = rule of requiring all blocks to signal for segwit.
I don't bel= ieve there would be any long lasting chainsplit though (because of the ~80%= hashrate support on segwit2x), perhaps 2-3 blocks if we get unlucky.
Hampus

2017-06-20 23:49 GMT+02:00 Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>:
On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 3:44 PM,= Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@li= sts.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Because a large percentage of miners are indifferent, right now miners= have
> to choose between BIP148 and Segwit2x if they want to activate Segwit.=

Miners can simply continuing signaling segwit, which will leave them=
at least soft-fork compatible with BIP148 and BIP91 (and god knows
what "segwit2x" is since they keep changing the actual definition= and
do not have a specification; but last I saw the near-term behavior the
same as BIP91 but with a radically reduced activation window, so the
story would be the same there in the near term).

Ironically, it looks like most of the segwit2x signaling miners are
faking it (because they're not signaling segwit which it requires).
It'll be unfortunate if some aren't faking it and start orphaning their own blocks because they are failing to signal segwit.

I don't think the rejection of segwit2x from Bitcoin's developers could be any more resolute than what we've already seen:
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Segwit_support

On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 5:22 PM, Mark Friedenbach via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> I think it is very na=C3=AFve to assume that any shift would be tempor= ary.
> We have a hard enough time getting miners to proactively upgrade to > recent versions of the reference bitcoin daemon. If miners interpret > the situation as being forced to run non-reference software in order > to prevent a chain split because a lack of support from Bitcoin Core,<= br> > that could be a one-way street.

I think this is somewhat naive and sounds a lot like the repeat of t= he
previously debunked "XT" and "Classic" hysteria.

There is a reason that segwit2x is pretty much unanimously rejected by
the technical community.=C2=A0 And just like with XT/Classic/Unlimited
you'll continue to see a strong correlation with people who are
unwilling and unable to keep updating the software at an acceptable
level of quality-- esp. because the very founding on their fork is
predicated on discarding those properties.

If miners want to go off and create an altcoin-- welp, thats something
they can always do,=C2=A0 and nothing about that will force anyone to go along with it.

As far as prevent a chain split goes, all those things
(148/91/segwit2x(per today)) effectively guarantee a chainsplit-- so I
don't think that holds.
______________________________= _________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.= linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org= /mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

--94eb2c12526abbaf1605526b98a5--