From: Johnson Lau <jl2012@xbt•hk>
To: Tom Harding <tomh@thinlink•com>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
<bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] New BIP: Dealing with dummy stack element malleability
Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2016 08:29:37 -0400 (EDT) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1966185375.94265.1472992177565@privateemail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <198f7a5e-7912-dfb2-1b61-388a4f81b7b5@thinlink.com>
Although it is technically possible to bundle 2 independent softforks in one release, it increases the burden of testing and maintenance. We need to test and prepare for 4 scenarios: both not activated, only NULLDUMMY activated, only SEGWIT activated, and both activated.
Also, as we learnt from BIP66, softfork activation could be risky. It is evident that today a non-negligible percentage of miners are hard-coding the block version number. This increases the risks of softfork transition as miners may not enforce what they are signaling (btw this is also happening on testnet) Making 2 independently softforks would double the risks, and I believe NULLDUMMY alone is not worth the risks.
> On September 2, 2016 at 1:10 PM Tom Harding via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>
> On 9/1/2016 9:40 PM, Johnson Lau via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> > This BIP will be deployed by "version bits" BIP9 using the same parameters for BIP141 and BIP143, with the name "segwit" and using bit 1.
> >
>
> This fix has value outside of segwit. Why bundle the two together?
> Shouldn't miners have to opportunity to vote on them independently?
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-09-04 12:29 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-09-02 4:40 Johnson Lau
2016-09-02 5:47 ` Peter Todd
2016-09-02 17:10 ` Tom Harding
2016-09-04 12:29 ` Johnson Lau [this message]
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=1966185375.94265.1472992177565@privateemail.com \
--to=jl2012@xbt$(echo .)hk \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=tomh@thinlink$(echo .)com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
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