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 3E4D326C for ; Thu, 20 Aug 2015 17:43:07 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-io0-f176.google.com (mail-io0-f176.google.com [209.85.223.176]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 67A6514E for ; Thu, 20 Aug 2015 17:43:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: by iods203 with SMTP id s203so54683549iod.0 for ; Thu, 20 Aug 2015 10:43:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=Dgx/OpqU9mAnrzdFzkNr4QZ+iNZfSldV1jRqHyS5IAo=; b=NB3lHNHftdmz8Z/wEdHwGJrVi+KDgwLVAe4t8Te7NkVKW9JMKvc1LJIhlsQe+Zz4JX FUMjBWV0xkHULNYN7lKhEc2AYiZ0NiV90oa4ge+iMVMOgLupky1yLYmt7Ah+JHT+RnNq fxmuHj92BsrVLFCNx+kyiuB/1eU+OU2ygiX/Bx+67Izk6fjYq7Rwd4LSpqLZijuHwwuo spvbYacdZSgLZyzXdfbfjCxQ9JJgKlRGvMyBdQhIRxh7ckMk7quUarnt/O3IlCs9lhYO UcEbqg7ZmOOeVhajLlRa4d0vTkhfR05WFo8x8cjgcsFt4eK/AA6zKhRC/sMYYBV9M5bx 2ErA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQk5TkMe6cczL8UI5SjVb5MiUAc1zQdhSD+9eMkkAtTy+FHWZcLeAG4PBwvP5yfJ4BkvYZ8X X-Received: by 10.107.130.28 with SMTP id e28mr4540154iod.77.1440092585704; Thu, 20 Aug 2015 10:43:05 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.107.138.14 with HTTP; Thu, 20 Aug 2015 10:42:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: [173.228.107.141] In-Reply-To: References: <20150819055036.GA19595@muck> From: Mark Friedenbach Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 10:42:45 -0700 Message-ID: To: jl2012@xbt.hk Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113fb70003d64b051dc1af8c X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] CLTV/CSV/etc. deployment considerations due to XT/Not-BitcoinXT miners X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 17:43:07 -0000 --001a113fb70003d64b051dc1af8c Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable No, the nVersion would be >=3D 4, so that we don't waste any version values= . On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 10:32 AM, jl2012 via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev =E6=96=BC 2015-08-19 01:50 =E5=AF=AB=E5=88=B0: > > >> >> 2) nVersion mask, with IsSuperMajority() >> >> In this option the nVersion bits set by XT/Not-Bitcoin-XT miners would >> be masked away, prior to applying standard IsSuperMajority() logic: >> >> block.nVersion & ~0x20000007 >> >> This means that CLTV/CSV/etc. miners running Bitcoin Core would create >> blocks with nVersion=3D8, 0b1000. From the perspective of the >> CLTV/CSV/etc. IsSuperMajority() test, XT/Not-Bitcoin-XT miners would be >> advertising blocks that do not trigger the soft-fork. >> >> For the perpose of soft-fork warnings, the highest known version can >> remain nVersion=3D8, which is triggered by both XT/Not-Bitcoin-XT blocks >> as well as a future nVersion bits implementation. Equally, >> XT/Not-Bitcoin-XT soft-fork warnings will be triggered, by having an >> unknown bit set. >> >> When nVersion bits is implemented by the Bitcoin protocol, the plan of >> setting the high bits to 0b001 still works. The three lowest bits will >> be unusable for some time, but will be eventually recoverable as >> XT/Not-Bitcoin-XT mining ceases. >> >> Equally, further IsSuperMajority() softforks can be accomplished with >> the same masking technique. >> >> This option does complicate the XT-coin protocol implementation in the >> future. But that's their problem, and anyway, the maintainers >> (Hearn/Andresen) has strenuously argued(5) against the use of soft-forks >> and/or appear to be in favor of a more centralized mandatory update >> schedule.(6) >> >> > If you are going to mask bits, would you consider to mask all bits except > the 4th bit? So other fork proposals may use other bits for voting > concurrently. > > And as I understand, the masking is applied only during the voting stage? > After the softfork is fully enforced with 95% support, the nVersion will = be > simply >=3D8, without any masking? > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > --001a113fb70003d64b051dc1af8c Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
No, the nVersion would be >=3D 4, so that we don't = waste any version values.

On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 10:32 AM, jl2012 via bitcoin-dev = <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> = wrote:
Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev =E6=96= =BC 2015-08-19 01:50 =E5=AF=AB=E5=88=B0:



2) nVersion mask, with IsSuperMajority()

In this option the nVersion bits set by XT/Not-Bitcoin-XT miners would
be masked away, prior to applying standard IsSuperMajority() logic:

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 block.nVersion & ~0x20000007

This means that CLTV/CSV/etc. miners running Bitcoin Core would create
blocks with nVersion=3D8, 0b1000. From the perspective of the
CLTV/CSV/etc.=C2=A0 IsSuperMajority() test, XT/Not-Bitcoin-XT miners would = be
advertising blocks that do not trigger the soft-fork.

For the perpose of soft-fork warnings, the highest known version can
remain nVersion=3D8, which is triggered by both XT/Not-Bitcoin-XT blocks as well as a future nVersion bits implementation. Equally,
XT/Not-Bitcoin-XT soft-fork warnings will be triggered, by having an
unknown bit set.

When nVersion bits is implemented by the Bitcoin protocol, the plan of
setting the high bits to 0b001 still works. The three lowest bits will
be unusable for some time, but will be eventually recoverable as
XT/Not-Bitcoin-XT mining ceases.

Equally, further IsSuperMajority() softforks can be accomplished with
the same masking technique.

This option does complicate the XT-coin protocol implementation in the
future. But that's their problem, and anyway, the maintainers
(Hearn/Andresen) has strenuously argued(5) against the use of soft-forks and/or appear to be in favor of a more centralized mandatory update
schedule.(6)


 If you are going to mask bits, would you consider to mask all bits except t= he 4th bit? So other fork proposals may use other bits for voting concurren= tly.

And as I understand, the masking is applied only during the voting stage? A= fter the softfork is fully enforced with 95% support, the nVersion will be = simply >=3D8, without any masking?

_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
= bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail= man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

--001a113fb70003d64b051dc1af8c--