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 7E8728CC for ; Sun, 12 Mar 2017 17:20:19 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-wr0-f170.google.com (mail-wr0-f170.google.com [209.85.128.170]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9A68490 for ; Sun, 12 Mar 2017 17:20:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-wr0-f170.google.com with SMTP id l37so90994942wrc.1 for ; Sun, 12 Mar 2017 10:20:18 -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; bh=KLrbl4ejjoImK1j7Wnf1KoODy75QysOB2Xp6dcoBqgE=; b=tdlMwrVURomcOCZ59nAJKe7OzfncrllPOEWEguGjw1lFucOmYPEaYLsNTluRnh8ai8 bahNQiwYBoBYCK4tFqPpxsmq8JARsqjusMKMzmJvwB8malF6V4kKoCmmz2MlWjTDUHwA 7vRBR3gcipd0EhOF/0Ukre4T7VW8cca0l9of7ZlwcP2W9dx1+cAI1ZzmeXIYkX1PDkTy eXmWy4suImWuYL8YjKg72IMHxEtmCYSqVaHlDlbGvAeN/5EHHcgz9vMs9pafmDBATtHf o/tnwraCSupPRcwQ0TFO1K2+ExQXIQ47aOn7gjfLQZOBiltvDd3+lbFSGsMhAxVQPV3G XagA== 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; bh=KLrbl4ejjoImK1j7Wnf1KoODy75QysOB2Xp6dcoBqgE=; b=EyTadPNTKWOr8urd61/DVsen06HftvSczn510FbsbSLrg8JaeUyaDtUIJZoBHOA/xU XnNsY1QrKIDsd9TB+Lx9uAR+vP5k+OO298GJPHzIP6rSBt4dTt9o5osRlFeibwvNgQkw 0TtGv7ae1LxHtAOoOyA0wcrnJhnZcQ0Gc6ea7yV2yQ3BD9u1a2t7GhTanDx4KzkTRNmM o/0HvuyRZz2HZNNmJmo9B4WxGPZpTPpi7080u7Btn96OQQbnAwx9SVCPqiCZh9l6OQ+o sGJywu6cnVyM5s8OXjoMqZ5p0tS0WXbruc+vkD4foq/QabcdOpsPiH+j5vYZA+s+QLUe EPMA== X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39mPOR2QzEC9j4AOQFz6uagehOM0WiLeqBFK5X8lsDOCePcaX8IECBjWm6ylXJtpFkDrwsWsPFo3eXdgwg== X-Received: by 10.223.164.16 with SMTP id d16mr23448385wra.47.1489339217044; Sun, 12 Mar 2017 10:20:17 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.28.92.193 with HTTP; Sun, 12 Mar 2017 10:20:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.28.92.193 with HTTP; Sun, 12 Mar 2017 10:20:15 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: David Vorick Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2017 13:20:15 -0400 Message-ID: To: shaolinfry@protonmail.ch, Bitcoin Dev Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f403045f2302fb6e16054a8bce1d X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Flag day activation of segwit 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: Sun, 12 Mar 2017 17:20:19 -0000 --f403045f2302fb6e16054a8bce1d Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 It has taken almost 6 months for SegWit adoption to get to where it is today. I don't think it will take that long to reach similar adoption for UASF SegWit, but conservatively we want to give it at least that much time. It's really important to stress here that a UASF will split and become the minority chain if a majority of the transaction accepting nodes on the network do not agree to strictly follow the UASF and outright reject blocks that do not signal for SegWit at the designated date. Before setting a flag day, I think we should get written cooperation agreements from the largest economic players in Bitcoin. This would include: Bitfinex Bitflyer BitGo BitPay Bitstamp Blockchain.info Blockcypher Coinbase Huobi Kraken Gemeni OkCoin Poloniex (feel free to discuss this list) 100% cooperation is not necessary, but close to 100% cooperation is strongly desired. It should be noted that their cooperation is only required because they are sufficiently powerful to threaten the success of a UASF, particularly because many of these entities hold users bitcoins. Once a convincing majority is on-board, I suggest we release a UASF patch that activates a full year after release. This is because a UASF is a big gamble that requires a large majority of the economy has upgraded. Though that is a very long time, SegWit can always be activated early with miner cooperation. ------ As an extra note, if the UASF triggers with majority economy support and the miners resist, a minority block reward chain may be the longest chain for a while. However, when the majority block reward chain does catch up, the minority reward chain will be entirely obliterated, eliminating all block rewards, all transaction history, and making a ton of money vanish all at once. This makes it very dangerous for an exchange, payment processor, online wallet, or miner to oppose the UASF if there is significant momentum behind it. This gives the UASF a powerful snowball effect once a few major parties (or the majority of tiny full nodes) have decided to commit to the UASF. On the other hand, failure means a permanent coin split, so it is still necessary to exercise caution that exceeds the caution of a normal soft fork. --f403045f2302fb6e16054a8bce1d Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
It has taken almost 6 mon= ths for SegWit adoption to get to where it is today. I don't think it w= ill take that long to reach similar adoption for UASF SegWit, but conservat= ively we want to give it at least that much time.

It's really important to stress here that a UASF will split and become= the minority chain if a majority of the transaction accepting nodes on the= network do not agree to strictly follow the UASF and outright reject block= s that do not signal for SegWit at the designated date.

Before setting a flag day, I think we should get written cooperation agree= ments from the largest economic players in Bitcoin. This would include:

Bitfinex
Bitf= lyer
BitGo
BitPay
Bitstamp
Blockchain.info
Blockcypher
Coinbase
Huobi
Kraken
Gemeni
OkCoin
Poloniex

(feel free to discuss this list)

100% c= ooperation is not necessary, but close to 100% cooperation is strongly desi= red. It should be noted that their cooperation is only required because the= y are sufficiently powerful to threaten the success of a UASF, particularly= because many of these entities hold users bitcoins.

On= ce a convincing majority is on-board, I suggest we release a UASF patch tha= t activates a full year after release. This is because a UASF is a big gamb= le that requires a large majority of the economy has upgraded.

Though that is a very long time, SegWit can always be activated e= arly with miner cooperation.
<= br>
------

As an extra note, if the UASF triggers with majority economy support and t= he miners resist, a minority block reward chain may be the longest chain fo= r a while. However, when the majority block reward chain does catch up, the= minority reward chain will be entirely obliterated, eliminating all block = rewards, all transaction history, and making a ton of money vanish all at o= nce.

This makes it very dangerous for an exchange, paym= ent processor, online wallet, or miner to oppose the UASF if there is signi= ficant momentum behind it. This gives the UASF a powerful snowball effect o= nce a few major parties (or the majority of tiny full nodes) have decided t= o commit to the UASF.

On the other hand, failure means = a permanent coin split, so it is still necessary to exercise caution that e= xceeds the caution of a normal soft fork.
--f403045f2302fb6e16054a8bce1d--