I couldn't agree more. It would require however for the Devs to throw their weight behind this with a lot of momentum. Spoonnet has been under development for quite some time now. Counter offering SegWit plus Spoonnet 12-24 months later would be a very progressive stance that I think would catch the interest of large swaths of the community. I'd be curious to hear Johnson's opinion on this. How much more testing would his proposal require? Daniele ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Mon, 22 May 2017 11:23:22 +0200 > From: Hampus Sj?berg > To: shaolinfry > Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion > > Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Barry Silbert segwit agreement > Message-ID: > tQ6f1OMHKdEMJA@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > I'm really happy to see people trying to cooperate to get SegWit activated. > But I'm really unsure about the technicalities about Silbert's proposal. > > If we're going to do a hardfork, it makes most sense to assist Johnson in > his spoonnet/forcenet proposals. > Just doing a simple 2MB without fixing anything else is very uninteresting, > and a hardfork without addressing replay protection seems really > unprofessional to me. > And proposing a hardfork in 4 months in the future, is completely insane. > You cannot expect a 100% of all nodes in P2P network to upgrade in 4 > months. > > I think it's much better to activate BIP141 ASAP, and then hardfork to 2MB > September 2018, or 2019 (together with forcenet/spoonnet). > And if not, BIP148 is gaining momentum once again so that sounds much more > interesting. > > Hampus > > 2017-05-22 8:12 GMT+02:00 shaolinfry via bitcoin-dev < > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>: > > > Someone sent me a copy of the Barry Silbert agreement, an agreement > forged > > between a select number of participants https://pastebin.com/VuCYteJh > > > > Participants agree to immediately activate Segwit, however, under a > > different activation proposal. Since I have spent the last few months > > researching various activation strategies of the current BIP141 > deployment, > > as well as redeployment, I feel I am quite well placed to comment on the > > technicalities. > > > > To be clear, the proposal as far as I can see does not activate BIP141, > > but is a completely new deployment which would be incompatible with the > > BIP141 deployment. I'm not sure how that can be considered "immediate" > > activation. Surely immediate activation would just be for miners to start > > signalling and segwit would be activated in 4-5 weeks. The proposal seems > > to require a lower 80% threshold, I assume because they were unable to > > convince 95% of the hashpower to go trigger activation. > > > > There are a few options to activating segwit now, the first being for 95% > > of hashrate to signal. The second is for the community to deploy BIP148 > > UASF which will force miners to signal segwit. Being a UASF it is date > > triggered. The third option is a redeployment of segwit on a new bit, but > > requires waiting for the existing deployment to time out, because all the > > p2p messages and service bits related to segwit must be replaced too > (which > > is what BIP149 does). > > > > A fourth option, first suggested to me by James Hilliard, was to make > > BIP148 miner triggered (MASF) with a lower threshold, above 50%. I coded > > this up a few weeks ago https://github.com/bitcoin/ > > bitcoin/compare/master...shaolinfry:segsignal but didnt get around to > > posting to the ML yet. This effectively lowers the threshold from 95% to > > 65% as coded, or could be upped to 80% or whatever was preferable. > > > > I think this removes the primary risk of BIP148 causing the creation of > > two chains, and gives an improved chance to get segwit activated quickly > > (assuming a majority of miners wish to go this route). But hash a primary > > disadvantage of still leaving the activation in the hands of miners. If > it > > doesn't work out, then BIP149 can then be used as proposed, but it'll be > > even safer because we'll have futher guaged support. > > > > References: > > > > SEGSIGNAL: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/master... > > shaolinfry:segsignal > > BIP148: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0148.mediawiki > > BIP149: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0149.mediawiki > > > > I think the Barry Silbert agreement is very ill considered, and clearly > > lacking peer review from the technical community. Suggestions of a HF in > 4 > > months are completely unrealistic and without technical merits. But more > > importantly, closed door agreements between selected participants is not > > how to garner consensus to change a $30bn decentralized system. The > purpose > > of my email is to try and assist in the "immediate activation of segwit" > > which only requires hashrate to participate; and to provide some > techincal > > input since I have done a great deal of research and development into the > > topic. > > > > Given the history we've already passed the point where we should be > > expecting miners to cooperate in lowering their own fee income with a > > capacity increase; but we should be open to all reasonable options in the > > interest in moving things forward in a safe and collaborative way. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > bitcoin-dev mailing list > > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > > > > >