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 D6D9140C for ; Sat, 8 Jul 2017 06:30:05 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-qk0-f176.google.com (mail-qk0-f176.google.com [209.85.220.176]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D3D4BE0 for ; Sat, 8 Jul 2017 06:30:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-qk0-f176.google.com with SMTP id 16so42748214qkg.2 for ; Fri, 07 Jul 2017 23:30:04 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=OKdcfQybGSy17GgkaurwCqi89IdRvvkm7RTAbZ+RrFU=; b=s8rWjZwaUyZ6I8x1/2plKws/LKQRtMMtNtJj0IT+cpzSW40Jz4uPtwRUFLuGCEBqjP pNxOFb/3x7pxkX4nvClbAyyu6K1/znfjYiufOxU1MSpQjdGUhQXtDm+b7BiwZbJtl7fa Dg7Fb9KknxTpmrjcJKYZSNp3HJuDUsUO+wHUopwZZmbi3PSxEyN/yVE7YcNQ0NX6ORcv sd8S94c+Rk4p0Gb7JO67IkU2KKG0hq0s/8MTL2NVZudh+3LjSeEoL4LympLSLMacA1da TQhRIDNrFbN5dPpkzlFJ2kZqfQd7cCL0ymVTdnfaRNbCk5qh7Wu5MGCEazN/Zn27osYg LTDg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=OKdcfQybGSy17GgkaurwCqi89IdRvvkm7RTAbZ+RrFU=; b=NL6vRfWNmpMXNnk3nwL6DA4mw3BLLdrxmP8JOukbYTsrknWgHMKmsrl99wIRouQKJc IgnbsU930hM4SiSBQXtwdFfG6Vr2eDIJi60pIf53lwooyGqwjUd+RM4lS+lMk3zF0vI/ MTeJmWpvOZeHpEeCrhtCReIvEEQUdD0Q2+ppaKID0z6azQmput+43U+cqn6Jw2L4dqNN UPwg3/TkuZfuTnKap8ioS784kUJAO1UihEgwmivAvcFWNAjDnK61G4IFWP9lZ2NSh8Kk a/0N4vshKEO5nZRCxqS8lFEJRaoj8l8DuQ/X/MPzLr/VOGxs/cQSW/gGoEcYRiEsLIPR VhjA== X-Gm-Message-State: AIVw113z+6r8M3Xp08Bh7EwvILTa31KpV3bKsKSJGCucmrRQAbow5PzV jKV66qurrM920GsU+3rwLoD/gQ9xl9z+a3w= X-Received: by 10.55.179.197 with SMTP id c188mr34055010qkf.69.1499495404047; Fri, 07 Jul 2017 23:30:04 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: earonesty@gmail.com Received: by 10.200.61.145 with HTTP; Fri, 7 Jul 2017 23:30:03 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Erik Aronesty Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2017 02:30:03 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: xD_JwLIUtqcGfVIf0PRKFfpoKvY Message-ID: To: Sergio Demian Lerner Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c0658ece693340553c87a5c" X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, FREEMAIL_FROM, HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM autolearn=no version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sat, 08 Jul 2017 10:54:55 +0000 Cc: bitcoin-dev Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] A Segwit2x BIP 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: Sat, 08 Jul 2017 06:30:06 -0000 --94eb2c0658ece693340553c87a5c Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" - The BIP91 portion of the fork seems OK to me. There are some issues with timing, but since this is for miner coordination of segwit activation, and has little to do with other network users, it could be included as an option. (I'm a fan of adding options;plugins, etc. to Bitcoin... some others aren't.) - This hard fork portion of the proposal is being deployed with "emergency" speed... even though there is not an emergency on the network today that I am aware of. If enacted, it will certainly result in two chains - and with no replay protection.. The results of this will be confusing - two ledgers with many transactions appearing on both and others appearing only on one. - The BIP should be modified to provide evidence and justification for the timeline that is consistent with the level of risk the network would bear if it were enacted. - The coercion used to drive production of this BIP is mired in a misinterpretation of BIP9 and sets a precedent for Bitcoin that may undermine the value prospect of all cryptocurrency in general. For this reason alone - even if all of the engineering concerns and timelines are improved - even assigning this BIP a number could be considered irresponsible. - If you still want to code up a fork for the Bitcoin network, consider starting with Luke's hard fork code and changing the rates of growth as needed for your desired effect. Also you might want to read this first (code references are in there): https://petertodd.org/2016/hardforks-after-the-segwit-blocksize-increase . Plans are already underway for a hard fork, for reasons that have nothing to do with block size, but could include a timeline for a block size growth consistent with global average residential bandwidth growth. --94eb2c0658ece693340553c87a5c Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
- The BIP91 portion of the fork seems OK to me.=C2=A0 Ther= e are some issues with timing, but since this is for miner coordination of = segwit activation, and has little to do with other network users, it could = be included as an option. =C2=A0 (I'm a fan of adding options;plugins, = etc. to Bitcoin... some others aren't.)

- This hard fork portio= n of the proposal is being deployed with "emergency" speed... eve= n though there is not an emergency on the network today that I am aware of.= =C2=A0 If enacted, it will certainly result in two chains - and with no re= play protection..=C2=A0 The results of this will be confusing - two ledgers= with many transactions appearing on both and others appearing only on one.= =C2=A0=C2=A0

- The BIP should be modified to = provide evidence and justification for the timeline that is consistent with= the level of risk the network would bear if it were enacted. =C2=A0
- The coercion used to drive production of this BIP is mired i= n a misinterpretation of BIP9 and sets a precedent for Bitcoin that may und= ermine the value prospect of all cryptocurrency in general. =C2=A0 For this= reason alone - even if all of the engineering concerns and timelines are i= mproved - even assigning this BIP a number could be considered irresponsibl= e.

- If you still want to code up a fork for the Bitcoin network, co= nsider starting with Luke's hard fork code and changing the rates of gr= owth as needed for your desired effect. =C2=A0 Also you might want to read = this first (code references are in there): https://petertodd.org/= 2016/hardforks-after-the-segwit-blocksize-increase .=C2=A0 Plans are al= ready underway for a hard fork, for reasons that have nothing to do with bl= ock size, but could include a timeline for a block size growth consistent w= ith global average residential bandwidth growth.

--94eb2c0658ece693340553c87a5c--