From: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp•com.au>
To: Russell O'Connor <roconnor@blockstream•io>,
Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr•org>
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP: Block signal enforcement via tx fees
Date: Mon, 15 May 2017 10:44:13 +0930 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87tw4mly56.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAMZUoKnjc4ezVm4FeMFA-+=g13E5ZwZCAoAjd_yL89v7qf1gEA@mail.gmail.com>
Russell O'Connor via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
writes:
> On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 1:26 AM, Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr•org> wrote:
>
>> Versionbits change/lose their meaning after the deployment timeout. For
>> this
>> reason, the timeout must be specified so the check is skipped when that
>> occurs.
>>
>
> To add a timeout a user can optionally bundle a pair of similar
> transactions. One with the transaction version bits set and a second with
> a locktime set. The effect is the same.
I have a similar proposal to Russell; use tx nVersion. However, my
subset is simpler, and uses fewer precious nVersion bits:
1. Top version 26 bits must be 1 (say)
2. Next bit indicates positive (must have bit set) or negative (must NOT
have bit set).
3. Bottom 5 bits refer to which BIP8/9 bit we're talking about.
This only allows specifying a single bit, and only support BIP8/9-style
signalling.
I believe we can skip the timeout: miners don't signal 100% either way
anyway. If a BIP is in LOCKIN, wallets shouldn't set positive on that
bit (this gives them two weeks). Similarly, if a BIP is close to
FAILED, don't set positive on your tx. Wallets shouldn't signal until
any bit until see some minimal chance it's accepted (eg. 1 in 20 blocks).
> I recall chatting about this idea recently and my conclusion was the same
> as Peter Todd's conclusion: this will just encourage miners to false signal
> readiness with undermines both BIP 9 and BIP 8.
This is gentler on miners than a UASF flag day, and does offer some
harder-to-game signalling from bitcoin users.
False signalling miners still have the 2 week LOCKIN period to upgrade,
otherwise they can already lose money. You could argue they're *more*
likely to upgrade with a signal that significant parts of the economy
have done so.
Cheers,
Rusty.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-05-15 1:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-05-12 19:22 Luke Dashjr
2017-05-12 22:17 ` ZmnSCPxj
2017-05-12 22:22 ` Peter Todd
2017-05-13 0:49 ` Luke Dashjr
2017-05-13 3:26 ` Eric Voskuil
2017-05-13 3:54 ` ZmnSCPxj
2017-05-13 5:36 ` Eric Voskuil
2017-05-13 5:45 ` Luke Dashjr
2017-05-13 6:43 ` Eric Voskuil
2017-05-13 12:48 ` Peter Todd
2017-05-13 16:42 ` Luke Dashjr
2017-05-13 4:23 ` Russell O'Connor
2017-05-13 5:26 ` Luke Dashjr
2017-05-13 17:11 ` Russell O'Connor
2017-05-15 1:14 ` Rusty Russell [this message]
2017-05-20 5:05 ` Anthony Towns
2017-05-14 12:18 ` ZmnSCPxj
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=87tw4mly56.fsf@rustcorp.com.au \
--to=rusty@rustcorp$(echo .)com.au \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=luke@dashjr$(echo .)org \
--cc=roconnor@blockstream$(echo .)io \
/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