public inbox for bitcoindev@googlegroups.com
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jacob Eliosoff <jacob.eliosoff@gmail•com>
To: bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
Subject: [bitcoin-dev] Barry Silbert segwit agreement
Date: Fri, 26 May 2017 13:47:11 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAAUaCyiHUOQ-rhN5XiGyMc6ocfsNBuH_tzK_QWu7sg1=Qd-o=Q@mail.gmail.com> (raw)

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 995 bytes --]

Forgive me if this is a dumb question.  Suppose that rather than directly
activating segwit, the Silbert/NYC Segwit2MB proposal's lock-in just
triggered BIP141 signaling (plus later HF).  Would that avoid
incompatibility with existing BIP141 nodes, and get segwit activated
sooner?  Eg:

- Bit 4 (or bit 5 or whatever, now that BIP91 uses 4) signals support for
"segwit now, HF (TBD) at scheduled date (Nov 23?)"
- If bit 4 support reaches 80%, it locks in two things: the scheduled HF
(conditional on segwit), and *immediately* turning on bit 1 (BIP141 support)

I realize this would still leave problems like the aggressive HF schedule,
possible chain split at the HF date between Segwit2MB nodes and any
remaining BIP141 nodes, etc.  My focus here is how incompatibility with
existing nodes could be minimized.

(BIP91 could also be used if BIP141 support still fell short of 95%.  But
if Segwit2MB support reaches 80%, it seems likely that an additional 15%
will support BIP141-without-HF.)

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1061 bytes --]

             reply	other threads:[~2017-05-26 17:47 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-05-26 17:47 Jacob Eliosoff [this message]
2017-05-26 18:48 ` Tom Zander
2017-05-26 20:02 ` Matt Corallo
2017-05-26 20:10   ` Jacob Eliosoff
2017-05-26 21:30     ` James Hilliard
2017-05-26 22:12       ` Tom Zander
     [not found]         ` <CADvTj4qdr2yGYFEWA7oVmL-KkrchYb5aQBRY9w0OK4ZVopSTSA@mail.gmail.com>
2017-05-28 20:51           ` Tom Zander
2017-05-28 23:28             ` James Hilliard
2017-05-26 22:44       ` Matt Corallo
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2017-05-22 12:29 Daniele Pinna
2017-05-22  6:12 shaolinfry
2017-05-22  6:27 ` Peter Todd
2017-05-22  9:23 ` Hampus Sjöberg

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='CAAUaCyiHUOQ-rhN5XiGyMc6ocfsNBuH_tzK_QWu7sg1=Qd-o=Q@mail.gmail.com' \
    --to=jacob.eliosoff@gmail$(echo .)com \
    --cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
    /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