From: Erik Aronesty <earonesty@gmail.com>
To: Btc Drak <btcdrak@gmail.com>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Segwit2Mb - combined soft/hard fork - Request For Comments
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 22:27:34 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAJowKgLUrMR9XN2Sb9ZuXCZx3K8Jy65pOOYGVhYeisszPoWLdA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CADJgMztpmcC_rv_oKYn_jRhLzx2FbtxgPUshcPDJpQVZYBcJzw@mail.gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1953 bytes --]
I personally appreciate the minimal changes, and often encourage
development to be done this way - when it needs to be released quickly.
But does this need to be released quickly?
- maybe the proposal should be renamed segwit 8mb and be discussed solely
in terms of block weights.
- a high consensus hard fork is probably preferable to a low consensus soft
fork, however there is nothing to indicate that segwit as it stands isnt
already very high consensus except for a handful of pool operators
protecting fee income.
- miners who currently object to segwit while pretending to like larger
blocks will find some excuse to object to this too.
- Given the challenges miners seem to have in flipping bits, I expect any
fork that requires 95pct hash power to be vaporware.
On Apr 3, 2017 11:02 AM, "Btc Drak via bitcoin-dev" <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 10:09 PM, Sergio Demian Lerner via bitcoin-dev <
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>> The hard-fork is conditional to 95% of the hashing power has approved the
>> segwit2mb soft-fork and the segwit soft-fork has been activated (which
>> should occur 2016 blocks after its lock-in time)
>>
>
> Miners signalling they have upgraded by flipping a bit in the nVersion
> field has little relevance in a hard fork. If 100% of the hash power
> indicates they are running this proposal, but the nodes don't upgrade, what
> will happen?
>
> For the record, I actually talk a lot about hard forks with various
> developers and am very interested in the research that Johnson in
> particular is pioneering. However, I have failed to understand your point
> about 95% miner signalling in relation to a hard fork, so I am eagerly
> awaiting your explanation.
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
>
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3210 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-04-06 2:27 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-03-31 21:09 [bitcoin-dev] Segwit2Mb - combined soft/hard fork - Request For Comments Sergio Demian Lerner
2017-03-31 21:18 ` Matt Corallo
2017-03-31 21:22 ` praxeology_guy
2017-03-31 21:50 ` Sergio Demian Lerner
2017-03-31 21:22 ` Matt Corallo
2017-03-31 22:13 ` Sergio Demian Lerner
2017-04-01 3:03 ` Samson Mow
2017-04-01 3:35 ` Sergio Demian Lerner
2017-06-02 20:04 ` Erik Aronesty
2017-04-01 6:55 ` Jared Lee Richardson
2017-04-01 11:44 ` Sergio Demian Lerner
2017-04-01 12:33 ` Jorge Timón
2017-04-01 13:15 ` Natanael
2017-04-01 14:07 ` Jorge Timón
[not found] ` <CAAt2M1_gDzEuDLSvVsJARvdCAtUyM3Yuu7TT25sbm3L-Zi6+0Q@mail.gmail.com>
[not found] ` <CAAt2M18=Tjw+05QCv6G7Abv=idB6ONgU9xvtrR=fn731452_mg@mail.gmail.com>
2017-04-01 15:34 ` Natanael
2017-04-02 4:57 ` Jorge Timón
2017-04-02 10:03 ` Natanael
2017-04-02 11:43 ` Jorge Timón
2017-06-02 20:04 ` Erik Aronesty
2017-06-02 21:51 ` Sergio Demian Lerner
2017-06-03 0:53 ` Erik Aronesty
2017-06-03 2:03 ` Oliver Petruzel
2017-06-03 21:05 ` Oliver Petruzel
2017-04-03 14:40 ` Btc Drak
2017-04-06 2:27 ` Erik Aronesty [this message]
2017-04-06 20:58 ` Sergio Demian Lerner
2017-04-06 20:42 ` Sergio Demian Lerner
2017-04-06 21:03 ` Sergio Demian Lerner
2017-04-06 22:29 ` Aymeric Vitte
2017-06-02 12:29 ` R E Broadley
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=CAJowKgLUrMR9XN2Sb9ZuXCZx3K8Jy65pOOYGVhYeisszPoWLdA@mail.gmail.com \
--to=earonesty@gmail.com \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=btcdrak@gmail.com \
--cc=erik@q32.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox