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 1671BA5E for ; Thu, 6 Apr 2017 20:43:01 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-qk0-f170.google.com (mail-qk0-f170.google.com [209.85.220.170]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 96DF8151 for ; Thu, 6 Apr 2017 20:43:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-qk0-f170.google.com with SMTP id f133so30747199qke.2 for ; Thu, 06 Apr 2017 13:43:00 -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 :cc; bh=HzeA7Z2QK7nFK5/ixhaY9nRzrN24UmJr74jl8278KQE=; b=qxpJG70nb3KnAJFa9y1xVp+oLkqKN8KPxB0chVWeA6EGlDhC3CGUe/VKL9/sQbaylH kdq2mHIgzjGNy8u6Kuo4CCuiIE/yCH5NrYQo20wWhbb00T2Y5tOByCaVBtLCNfYv/QiW exwPVatyLCzDhFHpntOD/o0yGnxZAYVItmejMr6+fHj81+tApxaNxM0NympXSbETdpPj /Cd3mOaGya4im/l6cway0k7xqdblzMHvhfiLO2J1VvZiWcSGTyiJsjWHD3VuTiE+57PH 7I9JTKcemvnO0fO28pQszOpGR3m/ceA2QW8LtmSHuqVX1FospriS27gh7AlwcHLkvw8n vK2A== 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:cc; bh=HzeA7Z2QK7nFK5/ixhaY9nRzrN24UmJr74jl8278KQE=; b=KJsFyTjUilgml5KLYMU+9nA6SBoSPq5FCk3HmIynu83bf/LcmqEvgivMyDtY/Kl7Ms LwwsMvABpzErSh7tsJccIG+Hw48ysEcAGwS14Isbji2Eo7oQFzJlQVXO4EQo+tk6Yl0T VqY8zgP4E2jfl26aQC3zIVs0VOVdFSFY60Nh7UNnHMcFbFMmmLn3o/YQ/SG2NsxHYJ6i 1FYZQ5wJghRedZtI/XUwfKF9WtvkgNiMk3CVFL5BNhc68LtwDYQr4E7aIdQ8E60PMRLN pJyvJ4tHxF7qJLxp19AJOXJrRd5zVG5m3oInxMJ6nKbrbqQy6TwTcE/wru8ZQr9Bx9Mm ip9g== X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H2MYoNP8anTJ3dyCdoY12XOtxi9u8K8NVSd3EzxVUPn1T7l7d5KCclvn/bipgQMD1bXxGbo3R+CAP5Udw== X-Received: by 10.55.22.95 with SMTP id g92mr26832241qkh.87.1491511379732; Thu, 06 Apr 2017 13:42:59 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.12.170.220 with HTTP; Thu, 6 Apr 2017 13:42:19 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Sergio Demian Lerner Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 17:42:19 -0300 Message-ID: To: Btc Drak Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1147b01ef7b169054c858df5 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, 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 Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Segwit2Mb - combined soft/hard fork - Request For Comments 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: Thu, 06 Apr 2017 20:43:01 -0000 --001a1147b01ef7b169054c858df5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 The 95% miner signaling is important to prevent two Bitcoin forks, such as what happened with Ethereum HF and Ethereum Classic. Bitcoin has a very slow difficulty re-targeting algorithm. A fork that has just 95% miner support will initially (for 2016 blocks) be 5% slower (an average block every 10 minutes and 30 seconds). The transaction capacity of the new Bitcoin protocol is reduced only 5%. However the chain with 5% if the hashing power not only has a 20x capacity reduction, but confirms transactions in 20x more time. So the mempool will grow 400 times. It must be noted that fees increased 10x from the moment blocks were half full, to the moment blocks became saturated. I'm sure no Bitcoin (pre-fork) user will be willing to pay 100x times the transaction fees to use such a slow and insecure network. So a 6-block confirmation will take 20 hours in the original chain and the original chain will be in this almost useless slow state for an average of 2016 blocks, or 280 days. If the original blockchain hard-forks to re-adjust the difficulty, then it will just represent an alt-coin having 5% of Bitcoin community, and it can't affect Bitcoin (the segwit2mb fork). On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 11:40 AM, Btc Drak 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. > --001a1147b01ef7b169054c858df5 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
The 95% miner signaling is important to prevent two B= itcoin forks, such as what happened with Ethereum HF and Ethereum Classic.<= /div>

Bitcoin has a very slow difficulty re-targeting algorit= hm. A fork that has just 95% miner support will initially (for 2016 blocks)= be 5% slower (an average block every 10 minutes and 30 seconds). The trans= action capacity of the new Bitcoin protocol is reduced only 5%.=C2=A0
H= owever the chain with 5% if the hashing power not only has a 20x capacity r= eduction, but confirms transactions in 20x more time. So the mempool will g= row 400 times. It must be noted that fees increased 10x from the moment blo= cks were half full, to the moment blocks became saturated. I'm sure no = Bitcoin (pre-fork) user will be willing to pay 100x times the transaction f= ees to use such a slow and insecure network.

So a = 6-block confirmation will take 20 hours in the original chain and the origi= nal chain will be in this almost useless slow state for an average of 2016 = blocks, or 280 days.=C2=A0
If the original blockchain hard-forks to re-= adjust the difficulty, then it will just represent an alt-coin having 5% of= Bitcoin community, and it can't affect Bitcoin (the segwit2mb fork).


On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 11:40 AM, Btc Drak &= lt;btcdrak@gmail.com= > wrote:
<= div class=3D"gmail_extra">
On Fr= i, Mar 31, 2017 at 10:09 PM, Sergio Demian Lerner via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrot= e:
The hard-fork is= conditional to 95% of the hashing power has approved the segwit2mb soft-fo= rk and the segwit soft-fork has been activated (which should occur 2016 blo= cks after its lock-in time)

<= div>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 indica= tes they are running this proposal, but the nodes don't upgrade, what w= ill 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 t= o understand your point about 95% miner signalling in relation to a hard fo= rk, so I am eagerly awaiting your explanation.

--001a1147b01ef7b169054c858df5--