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 C1452B35 for ; Wed, 24 May 2017 16:44:58 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-qk0-f175.google.com (mail-qk0-f175.google.com [209.85.220.175]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5BE4C1FC for ; Wed, 24 May 2017 16:44:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-qk0-f175.google.com with SMTP id y201so158250840qka.0 for ; Wed, 24 May 2017 09:44:57 -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=dP7XXfvXJGXX3Mqwk5L2hvrN8Mu5slWl+X2ZL93VdpY=; b=VhNkBGAY5r6IYbysx8vZsp3m88Gi8dpdrzC/uYmrHmcjxnxfcgiKNzqk9G88sfFOdO hYpPjhU8Fx0qWBbzcZb9QWPShh0tzFEAOgAYTDR/JR1jpBAKOlVRCYnSXEODRC4uaceV 1tE4zq7A6jFWLpTeU5fXfq5R+JijzrLPRvQAkZVQBdVrcMEvhE+UgqkGnEMIR1SJ4cof lpKZHe8ETm/2wSG3rq9fmEIC0uekq1MHx5dpiHnh5dPvEEdel5hIGTHsIQ9gFSlr40ev K5YVs3W8cRU3PNtY/anqlg2xpatcLf7NnFti1ubEvrv4oLzZNZSGrQ/yBDo+uhBYeO4e DVyg== 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=dP7XXfvXJGXX3Mqwk5L2hvrN8Mu5slWl+X2ZL93VdpY=; b=HO1LlnQFzWi9zqTZe1p66NP66ErvzKGLtXBTOnVw/Qd/iLbH9xBxNXEdSvZ8wE7YO2 eQ1EYgxeEUXpNgjY/eKt2MPQwzAptxqXlZFthAmCE8FCdzGhoiXi6xvSXjG5otYD1kgv ylAUKrLmbEcKjnyT4dXwWykE3zJ8KGaM79w0+ekiPoB9p/uZMjV+BCYDLdsX5tD0kjlg 887gyigJpwuckfv4WUerBNHBc8yYVRjODp/Y/RBiywS4J+8TYM7BXB4CMA2lwEU0UZVQ i6NkLAyhGp7dHzin2o8uShTVf+Gxbsend+/vpn1u6vhBLmii0TiEBZbofi/7y1EZKVG/ 6DvQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AODbwcDv13g0DvPTXn+LZ2bnT7J/G9zeQIRYbvTGGgh64/P9LPDCOimF iQGWuwfphCKtB0hlYUWibzg/8je0p0T9 X-Received: by 10.233.220.71 with SMTP id q68mr30082489qkf.199.1495644296454; Wed, 24 May 2017 09:44:56 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: earonesty@gmail.com Received: by 10.237.48.102 with HTTP; Wed, 24 May 2017 09:44:55 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4C86CB4F-4ED2-4908-BF5D-6115891DA1D4@gmail.com> References: <4C86CB4F-4ED2-4908-BF5D-6115891DA1D4@gmail.com> From: Erik Aronesty Date: Wed, 24 May 2017 12:44:55 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 2DRL9euaol1RZVx-TST1L3hfXIY Message-ID: To: Wang Chun <1240902@gmail.com> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c0438e0002879055047d30c" 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: Wed, 24 May 2017 16:50:38 +0000 Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Reduced signalling threshold activation of existing segwit deployment 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: Wed, 24 May 2017 16:44:58 -0000 --94eb2c0438e0002879055047d30c Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Yes, 75% seems fine - given that there is a already a wide deployment of segwit enforcing nodes This implementation is 100% compatible with a "UASF movement" since, if triggered, it essentially turns all supporting miners into equivalent BIP148 enforcers. This should allay any fears that this would subvert a UASF. The proposed "agreement" which was reached without input from the development community also apparently requires that a hard fork be locked in on the same bit (bit 4). Ideally, such a 2MB increase should be scheduled using BIP103-esqe logic: Gradually increasing from 1MB to 2MB over the course of at least a couple years, beginning 6 months from lock-in. This will give developers ample time to evaluate and react to network impacts. On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 12:02 PM, Wang Chun via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > I think we should go for 75%, same Litecoin. As I have said before, 95% > threshold is too high even for unconventional soft forks. > > > =E5=9C=A8 2017=E5=B9=B45=E6=9C=8824=E6=97=A5=EF=BC=8C04:58=EF=BC=8CAndr= ew Chow via bitcoin-dev linuxfoundation.org> =E5=86=99=E9=81=93=EF=BC=9A > > > > Ah. I see now. It wasn't very clear to me that that is what will happen= . > > > > Also, shouldn't the timeout date be set for before the BIP141 timeout? > > Otherwise this could lock in but not have enough time for Segwit to be > > locked in. > > > > > >> On 5/23/2017 4:42 PM, James Hilliard wrote: > >> That is incorrect, it is compatible with the current segwit > >> implementation because it triggers a mandatory signalling period that > >> will activate segwit on existing nodes. > >> > >> On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 4:39 PM, Andrew Chow via bitcoin-dev > >> wrote: > >>> Hi James, > >>> > >>> From what I understand, this proposal is incompatible with the curren= t > >>> segwit implementation with regards to the NODE_WITNESS service bit. I > >>> believe it could cause network partitioning if the service bit is not > >>> changed. > >>> > >>> Andrew > >>> > >>> > >>>> On 5/22/2017 6:40 PM, James Hilliard via bitcoin-dev wrote: > >>>> I would like to propose an implementation that accomplishes the firs= t > >>>> part of the Barry Silbert proposal independently from the second: > >>>> > >>>> "Activate Segregated Witness at an 80% threshold, signaling at bit 4= " > >>>> in a way that > >>>> > >>>> The goal here is to minimize chain split risk and network disruption > >>>> while maximizing backwards compatibility and still providing for rap= id > >>>> activation of segwit at the 80% threshold using bit 4. > >>>> > >>>> By activating segwit immediately and separately from any HF we can > >>>> scale quickly without risking a rushed combined segwit+HF that would > >>>> almost certainly cause widespread issues. > >>>> > >>>> Draft proposal: > >>>> https://github.com/jameshilliard/bips/blob/bip- > segsignal/bip-segsignal.mediawiki > >>>> > >>>> Proposal text: > >>>> 
> >>>>  BIP: segsignal
> >>>>  Layer: Consensus (soft fork)
> >>>>  Title: Reduced signalling threshold activation of existing segwit
> deployment
> >>>>  Author: James Hilliard 
> >>>>  Status: Draft
> >>>>  Type: Standards Track
> >>>>  Created: 2017-05-22
> >>>>  License: BSD-3-Clause
> >>>>           CC0-1.0
> >>>>
> >>>> > >>>> =3D=3DAbstract=3D=3D > >>>> > >>>> This document specifies a method to activate the existing BIP9 segwi= t > >>>> deployment with a majority hashpower less than 95%. > >>>> > >>>> =3D=3DDefinitions=3D=3D > >>>> > >>>> "existing segwit deployment" refer to the BIP9 "segwit" deployment > >>>> using bit 1, between November 15th 2016 and November 15th 2017 to > >>>> activate BIP141, BIP143 and BIP147. > >>>> > >>>> =3D=3DMotivation=3D=3D > >>>> > >>>> Segwit increases the blocksize, fixes transaction malleability, and > >>>> makes scripting easier to upgrade as well as bringing many other > >>>> [https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/01/26/segwit-benefits/ benefits]. > >>>> > >>>> This BIP provides a way for a simple majority of miners to coordinat= e > >>>> activation of the existing segwit deployment with less than 95% > >>>> hashpower. For a number of reasons a complete redeployment of segwit > >>>> is difficulty to do until the existing deployment expires. This is d= ue > >>>> to 0.13.1+ having many segwit related features active already, > >>>> including all the P2P components, the new network service flag, the > >>>> witness-tx and block messages, compact blocks v2 and preferential > >>>> peering. A redeployment of segwit will need to redefine all these > >>>> things and doing so before expiry would greatly complicate testing. > >>>> > >>>> =3D=3DSpecification=3D=3D > >>>> > >>>> While this BIP is active, all blocks must set the nVersion header to= p > >>>> 3 bits to 001 together with bit field (1<<1) (according to the > >>>> existing segwit deployment). Blocks that do not signal as required > >>>> will be rejected. > >>>> > >>>> =3D=3DDeployment=3D=3D > >>>> > >>>> This BIP will be deployed by a "version bits" with an 80%(this can b= e > >>>> adjusted if desired) activation threshold BIP9 with the name > >>>> "segsignal" and using bit 4. > >>>> > >>>> This BIP will have a start time of midnight June 1st, 2017 (epoch ti= me > >>>> 1496275200) and timeout on midnight November 15th 2017 (epoch time > >>>> 1510704000). This BIP will cease to be active when segwit is > >>>> locked-in. > >>>> > >>>> =3D=3D=3D Reference implementation =3D=3D=3D > >>>> > >>>> 
> >>>> // Check if Segregated Witness is Locked In
> >>>> bool IsWitnessLockedIn(const CBlockIndex* pindexPrev, const
> >>>> Consensus::Params& params)
> >>>> {
> >>>>    LOCK(cs_main);
> >>>>    return (VersionBitsState(pindexPrev, params,
> >>>> Consensus::DEPLOYMENT_SEGWIT, versionbitscache) =3D=3D
> >>>> THRESHOLD_LOCKED_IN);
> >>>> }
> >>>>
> >>>> // SEGSIGNAL mandatory segwit signalling.
> >>>> if ( VersionBitsState(pindex->pprev, chainparams.GetConsensus(),
> >>>> Consensus::DEPLOYMENT_SEGSIGNAL, versionbitscache) =3D=3D
> THRESHOLD_ACTIVE
> >>>> &&
> >>>>     !IsWitnessLockedIn(pindex->pprev, chainparams.GetConsensus()) &&
> >>>> // Segwit is not locked in
> >>>>     !IsWitnessEnabled(pindex->pprev, chainparams.GetConsensus()) ) /=
/
> >>>> and is not active.
> >>>> {
> >>>>    bool fVersionBits =3D (pindex->nVersion & VERSIONBITS_TOP_MASK) =
=3D=3D
> >>>> VERSIONBITS_TOP_BITS;
> >>>>    bool fSegbit =3D (pindex->nVersion &
> >>>> VersionBitsMask(chainparams.GetConsensus(),
> >>>> Consensus::DEPLOYMENT_SEGWIT)) !=3D 0;
> >>>>    if (!(fVersionBits && fSegbit)) {
> >>>>        return state.DoS(0, error("ConnectBlock(): relayed block must
> >>>> signal for segwit, please upgrade"), REJECT_INVALID, "bad-no-segwit"=
);
> >>>>    }
> >>>> }
> >>>>
> >>>> > >>>> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/0.14... > jameshilliard:segsignal-v0.14.1 > >>>> > >>>> =3D=3DBackwards Compatibility=3D=3D > >>>> > >>>> This deployment is compatible with the existing "segwit" bit 1 > >>>> deployment scheduled between midnight November 15th, 2016 and midnig= ht > >>>> November 15th, 2017. Miners will need to upgrade their nodes to > >>>> support segsignal otherwise they may build on top of an invalid bloc= k. > >>>> While this bip is active users should either upgrade to segsignal or > >>>> wait for additional confirmations when accepting payments. > >>>> > >>>> =3D=3DRationale=3D=3D > >>>> > >>>> Historically we have used IsSuperMajority() to activate soft forks > >>>> such as BIP66 which has a mandatory signalling requirement for miner= s > >>>> once activated, this ensures that miners are aware of new rules bein= g > >>>> enforced. This technique can be leveraged to lower the signalling > >>>> threshold of a soft fork while it is in the process of being deploye= d > >>>> in a backwards compatible way. > >>>> > >>>> By orphaning non-signalling blocks during the BIP9 bit 1 "segwit" > >>>> deployment, this BIP can cause the existing "segwit" deployment to > >>>> activate without needing to release a new deployment. > >>>> > >>>> =3D=3DReferences=3D=3D > >>>> > >>>> *[https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/ > bitcoin-dev/2017-March/013714.html > >>>> Mailing list discussion] > >>>> *[https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/v0.6.0/src/main. > cpp#L1281-L1283 > >>>> P2SH flag day activation] > >>>> *[[bip-0009.mediawiki|BIP9 Version bits with timeout and delay]] > >>>> *[[bip-0016.mediawiki|BIP16 Pay to Script Hash]] > >>>> *[[bip-0141.mediawiki|BIP141 Segregated Witness (Consensus layer)]] > >>>> *[[bip-0143.mediawiki|BIP143 Transaction Signature Verification for > >>>> Version 0 Witness Program]] > >>>> *[[bip-0147.mediawiki|BIP147 Dealing with dummy stack element > malleability]] > >>>> *[[bip-0148.mediawiki|BIP148 Mandatory activation of segwit > deployment]] > >>>> *[[bip-0149.mediawiki|BIP149 Segregated Witness (second deployment)]= ] > >>>> *[https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/01/26/segwit-benefits/ Segwit > benefits] > >>>> > >>>> =3D=3DCopyright=3D=3D > >>>> > >>>> This document is dual licensed as BSD 3-clause, and Creative Commons > >>>> CC0 1.0 Universal. > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> bitcoin-dev mailing list > >>>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > >>>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> bitcoin-dev mailing list > >>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > >>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > > > > _______________________________________________ > > bitcoin-dev mailing list > > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > --94eb2c0438e0002879055047d30c Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Yes, 75% seems fine - given that there is a already a wide= deployment of segwit enforcing nodes

This implementation is 100% co= mpatible with a "UASF movement" since, if triggered, it essential= ly turns all supporting miners into equivalent BIP148 enforcers. =C2=A0 Thi= s should allay any fears that this would subvert a UASF.

The propose= d "agreement" which was reached without input from the developmen= t community also apparently requires that a hard fork be locked in on the s= ame bit (bit 4). =C2=A0

Ideally, such a 2MB increase should be sche= duled using BIP103-esqe logic: Gradually increasing from 1MB to 2MB over th= e course of at least a couple years, beginning 6 months from lock-in.
This will give developers ample time to evaluate and react to network imp= acts.


On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 12:02 PM, Wang Chun via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:=
I think we should go for 75%, same Litec= oin. As I have said before, 95% threshold is too high even for unconvention= al soft forks.

> =E5=9C=A8 2017=E5=B9=B45=E6=9C=8824=E6=97=A5=EF=BC=8C04:58=EF=BC=8CAnd= rew Chow via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> =E5=86=99=E9= =81=93=EF=BC=9A
>
> Ah. I see now. It wasn't very clear to me that that is what will h= appen.
>
> Also, shouldn't the timeout date be set for before the BIP141 time= out?
> Otherwise this could lock in but not have enough time for Segwit to be=
> locked in.
>
>
>> On 5/23/2017 4:42 PM, James Hilliard wrote:
>> That is incorrect, it is compatible with the current segwit
>> implementation because it triggers a mandatory signalling period t= hat
>> will activate segwit on existing nodes.
>>
>> On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 4:39 PM, Andrew Chow via bitcoin-dev
>> <bitco= in-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>> Hi James,
>>>
>>> From what I understand, this proposal is incompatible with the= current
>>> segwit implementation with regards to the NODE_WITNESS service= bit. I
>>> believe it could cause network partitioning if the service bit= is not
>>> changed.
>>>
>>> Andrew
>>>
>>>
>>>> On 5/22/2017 6:40 PM, James Hilliard via bitcoin-dev wrote= :
>>>> I would like to propose an implementation that accomplishe= s the first
>>>> part of the Barry Silbert proposal independently from the = second:
>>>>
>>>> "Activate Segregated Witness at an 80% threshold, sig= naling at bit 4"
>>>> in a way that
>>>>
>>>> The goal here is to minimize chain split risk and network = disruption
>>>> while maximizing backwards compatibility and still providi= ng for rapid
>>>> activation of segwit at the 80% threshold using bit 4.
>>>>
>>>> By activating segwit immediately and separately from any H= F we can
>>>> scale quickly without risking a rushed combined segwit+HF = that would
>>>> almost certainly cause widespread issues.
>>>>
>>>> Draft proposal:
>>>> htt= ps://github.com/jameshilliard/bips/blob/bip-segsignal/bip-segsign= al.mediawiki
>>>>
>>>> Proposal text:
>>>> <pre>
>>>>=C2=A0 BIP: segsignal
>>>>=C2=A0 Layer: Consensus (soft fork)
>>>>=C2=A0 Title: Reduced signalling threshold activation of ex= isting segwit deployment
>>>>=C2=A0 Author: James Hilliard <james.hilliard1@gmail.com>
>>>>=C2=A0 Status: Draft
>>>>=C2=A0 Type: Standards Track
>>>>=C2=A0 Created: 2017-05-22
>>>>=C2=A0 License: BSD-3-Clause
>>>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0CC0-1.0
>>>> </pre>
>>>>
>>>> =3D=3DAbstract=3D=3D
>>>>
>>>> This document specifies a method to activate the existing = BIP9 segwit
>>>> deployment with a majority hashpower less than 95%.
>>>>
>>>> =3D=3DDefinitions=3D=3D
>>>>
>>>> "existing segwit deployment" refer to the BIP9 &= quot;segwit" deployment
>>>> using bit 1, between November 15th 2016 and November 15th = 2017 to
>>>> activate BIP141, BIP143 and BIP147.
>>>>
>>>> =3D=3DMotivation=3D=3D
>>>>
>>>> Segwit increases the blocksize, fixes transaction malleabi= lity, and
>>>> makes scripting easier to upgrade as well as bringing many= other
>>>> [https://bitcoincore.org/en/<= wbr>2016/01/26/segwit-benefits/ benefits].
>>>>
>>>> This BIP provides a way for a simple majority of miners to= coordinate
>>>> activation of the existing segwit deployment with less tha= n 95%
>>>> hashpower. For a number of reasons a complete redeployment= of segwit
>>>> is difficulty to do until the existing deployment expires.= This is due
>>>> to 0.13.1+ having many segwit related features active alre= ady,
>>>> including all the P2P components, the new network service = flag, the
>>>> witness-tx and block messages, compact blocks v2 and prefe= rential
>>>> peering. A redeployment of segwit will need to redefine al= l these
>>>> things and doing so before expiry would greatly complicate= testing.
>>>>
>>>> =3D=3DSpecification=3D=3D
>>>>
>>>> While this BIP is active, all blocks must set the nVersion= header top
>>>> 3 bits to 001 together with bit field (1<<1) (accord= ing to the
>>>> existing segwit deployment). Blocks that do not signal as = required
>>>> will be rejected.
>>>>
>>>> =3D=3DDeployment=3D=3D
>>>>
>>>> This BIP will be deployed by a "version bits" wi= th an 80%(this can be
>>>> adjusted if desired) activation threshold BIP9 with the na= me
>>>> "segsignal" and using bit 4.
>>>>
>>>> This BIP will have a start time of midnight June 1st, 2017= (epoch time
>>>> 1496275200) and timeout on midnight November 15th 2017 (ep= och time
>>>> 1510704000). This BIP will cease to be active when segwit = is
>>>> locked-in.
>>>>
>>>> =3D=3D=3D Reference implementation =3D=3D=3D
>>>>
>>>> <pre>
>>>> // Check if Segregated Witness is Locked In
>>>> bool IsWitnessLockedIn(const CBlockIndex* pindexPrev, cons= t
>>>> Consensus::Params& params)
>>>> {
>>>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 LOCK(cs_main);
>>>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 return (VersionBitsState(pindexPrev, params,<= br> >>>> Consensus::DEPLOYMENT_SEGWIT, versionbitscache) =3D=3D
>>>> THRESHOLD_LOCKED_IN);
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> // SEGSIGNAL mandatory segwit signalling.
>>>> if ( VersionBitsState(pindex->pprev, chainparams.G= etConsensus(),
>>>> Consensus::DEPLOYMENT_SEGSIGNAL, versionbitscache) = =3D=3D THRESHOLD_ACTIVE
>>>> &&
>>>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0!IsWitnessLockedIn(pindex->ppre= v, chainparams.GetConsensus()) &&
>>>> // Segwit is not locked in
>>>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0!IsWitnessEnabled(pindex->pprev= , chainparams.GetConsensus()) ) //
>>>> and is not active.
>>>> {
>>>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 bool fVersionBits =3D (pindex->nVersion &a= mp; VERSIONBITS_TOP_MASK) =3D=3D
>>>> VERSIONBITS_TOP_BITS;
>>>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 bool fSegbit =3D (pindex->nVersion & >>>> VersionBitsMask(chainparams.GetConsensus(),
>>>> Consensus::DEPLOYMENT_SEGWIT)) !=3D 0;
>>>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 if (!(fVersionBits && fSegbit)) {
>>>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 return state.DoS(0, error("= ;ConnectBlock(): relayed block must
>>>> signal for segwit, please upgrade"), REJECT_INVALID, = "bad-no-segwit");
>>>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 }
>>>> }
>>>> </pre>
>>>>
>>>> ht= tps://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/0.14...jameshilliard:seg= signal-v0.14.1
>>>>
>>>> =3D=3DBackwards Compatibility=3D=3D
>>>>
>>>> This deployment is compatible with the existing "segw= it" bit 1
>>>> deployment scheduled between midnight November 15th, 2016 = and midnight
>>>> November 15th, 2017. Miners will need to upgrade their nod= es to
>>>> support segsignal otherwise they may build on top of an in= valid block.
>>>> While this bip is active users should either upgrade to se= gsignal or
>>>> wait for additional confirmations when accepting payments.=
>>>>
>>>> =3D=3DRationale=3D=3D
>>>>
>>>> Historically we have used IsSuperMajority() to activate so= ft forks
>>>> such as BIP66 which has a mandatory signalling requirement= for miners
>>>> once activated, this ensures that miners are aware of new = rules being
>>>> enforced. This technique can be leveraged to lower the sig= nalling
>>>> threshold of a soft fork while it is in the process of bei= ng deployed
>>>> in a backwards compatible way.
>>>>
>>>> By orphaning non-signalling blocks during the BIP9 bit 1 &= quot;segwit"
>>>> deployment, this BIP can cause the existing "segwit&q= uot; deployment to
>>>> activate without needing to release a new deployment.
>>>>
>>>> =3D=3DReferences=3D=3D
>>>>
>>>> *[htt= ps://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-March/0= 13714.html
>>>> Mailing list discussion]
>>>> *[https://gi= thub.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/v0.6.0/src/main.cpp#L1281-L1283=
>>>> P2SH flag day activation]
>>>> *[[bip-0009.mediawiki|BIP9 Version bits with timeout and d= elay]]
>>>> *[[bip-0016.mediawiki|BIP16 Pay to Script Hash]]
>>>> *[[bip-0141.mediawiki|BIP141 Segregated Witness (Consensus= layer)]]
>>>> *[[bip-0143.mediawiki|BIP143 Transaction Signature Verific= ation for
>>>> Version 0 Witness Program]]
>>>> *[[bip-0147.mediawiki|BIP147 Dealing with dummy stack elem= ent malleability]]
>>>> *[[bip-0148.mediawiki|BIP148 Mandatory activation of segwi= t deployment]]
>>>> *[[bip-0149.mediawiki|BIP149 Segregated Witness (second de= ployment)]]
>>>> *[https://bitcoincore.org/en/= 2016/01/26/segwit-benefits/ Segwit benefits]
>>>>
>>>> =3D=3DCopyright=3D=3D
>>>>
>>>> This document is dual licensed as BSD 3-clause, and Creati= ve Commons
>>>> CC0 1.0 Universal.
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>>>> b= itcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>>>> https://lists.linuxfo= undation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>>> bitco= in-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>>> https://lists.linuxfounda= tion.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@l= ists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.= linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org= /mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

--94eb2c0438e0002879055047d30c--