From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd•org>
To: Tom Zander <tomz@freedommail•ch>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
<bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Start time for BIP141 (segwit)
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2016 09:09:27 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20161017130927.GA19897@fedora-21-dvm> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <2381760.VTJ5BOIlGi@strawberry>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2912 bytes --]
On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 01:17:39PM +0200, Tom Zander via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> On Sunday, 16 October 2016 17:19:37 CEST Andrew C wrote:
> > On 10/16/2016 4:58 PM, Tom Zander via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> > > Lets get back to the topic. Having a longer fallow period is a simple
> > > way to be safe. Your comments make me even more scared that safety is
> > > not taken into account the way it would.
> >
> > Can you please explain how having a longer grace period makes it any
> > safer? Once the fork reaches the LOCKED_IN status, the fork will become
> > active after the period is over. How does having a longer grace period
> > make this any safer besides just adding more waiting before it goes
> > active?
>
> As Marek wrote just minutes before your email came in; companies will not
> roll out their updates until it locks in. Peter Todd says the same thing.
> So your assumption that the lock-in time is the END of the upgrading is
> false. Thats only the case for miners.
>
> The entire point here is that SegWit is much bigger than just full nodes
> (including miner).
> An entire ecosystem of Bitconin will have a need to upgrade.
>
> I understand people saying that non-miners don't *need* to upgrade in order
> to avoid being kicked of the network, but truely, thats a bogus argument.
>
> People want to actually participate in Bitcoin and that means they need to
> understand all of it. Not just see anyone-can-spend transactions.
> I think its rather odd to think that developers on this list can decide
> the risk profile that Bitcoin using companies or individuals should have.
Please don't misleadingly reference/quote me.
I made it quite clear in my last post that because segwit is a backwards
compatible soft-fork, the vast majority of code out there will not have to
change; my own OpenTimestamps being a good example. All I'll have to do to
prepare for segwit is upgrade the (pruned) full nodes that the OpenTimestamps
servers depend on to determine what's the most-work valid chain, and in the
event I was concerned about compatibility issues, I could easily run my
existing nodes behind updated segwit-supporting (pruned) nodes.
Like most users, my OpenTimestamps code doesn't "fully understand" transactions
at all - I rely on my full node to do that for me. What it does understand
about transactions and blocks remains the same in segwit. I can receive
transactions from segwit users with lite-client security without any action at
all, and full-node security once I upgrade my full nodes (or run them behind
upgraded nodes).
Your proposed alternative to segwit - flexible transactions - has none of these
beneficial properties. And as Matt Corallo reported, it's no-where near ready
for deployment: three buffer overflows in 80 lines of code is a serious
problem.
--
https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 455 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-10-17 13:09 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 31+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-10-16 14:31 Pieter Wuille
2016-10-16 14:58 ` Tom Zander
2016-10-16 16:35 ` Gavin Andresen
2016-10-16 16:42 ` Tom Zander
2016-10-16 16:57 ` Johnson Lau
2016-10-16 17:04 ` [bitcoin-dev] On the security of soft forks Matt Corallo
2016-10-16 16:42 ` [bitcoin-dev] Start time for BIP141 (segwit) Eric Voskuil
2016-10-16 16:47 ` Douglas Roark
2016-10-16 18:20 ` Tom Zander
2016-10-16 18:41 ` Jorge Timón
2016-10-16 18:54 ` Tom Zander
2016-10-16 19:11 ` Johnson Lau
2016-10-16 20:08 ` Tom Zander
2016-10-17 3:46 ` Johnson Lau
2016-10-16 19:35 ` [bitcoin-dev] (no subject) Matt Corallo
2016-10-16 20:45 ` Tom Zander
2016-10-17 13:13 ` Btc Drak
2016-10-16 19:49 ` [bitcoin-dev] Start time for BIP141 (segwit) Douglas Roark
2016-10-16 20:58 ` Tom Zander
2016-10-16 21:03 ` gb
2016-10-16 21:08 ` Marek Palatinus
2016-10-16 21:19 ` Andrew C
2016-10-17 11:17 ` Tom Zander
2016-10-17 13:09 ` Peter Todd [this message]
2016-10-17 13:19 ` Andrew C
2016-10-17 13:27 ` Btc Drak
2016-10-17 13:31 ` Jorge Timón
2016-10-16 20:14 ` Btc Drak
2016-10-16 16:08 ` Chris Belcher
2016-10-16 17:52 ` Matt Corallo
2016-10-16 21:49 ` Peter Todd
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=20161017130927.GA19897@fedora-21-dvm \
--to=pete@petertodd$(echo .)org \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=tomz@freedommail$(echo .)ch \
/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