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