Re: [bitcoin-dev] A Small Modification to Segwit

From: Jimmy Song <jaejoon@gmail•com>
To: Sancho Panza <sanch0panza@protonmail•com>
Cc: "bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org"
	<bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] A Small Modification to Segwit
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2017 09:40:28 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAJR7vkruAKxyB4GpU7=Tb7U8+zHzrb4PbL5zssC70BEtFVY=WA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <04bbsNGwBdLiye5VgB_cNxkCNiOSNJBWFpI2QbN_o_ZQWRLEU7FjgkfOi5DZXrrBeQIuacMn_JHGzzX4dCmoyjmpT6PI9GZDu3JDgpgT4Pw=@protonmail.com>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1177 bytes --]

I've changed the proposal so only 8 bits are given to grinding so something
like 20 bits are available for signaling.

I have to say I'm at a loss here as to what's next? Should I make a new BIP
or try to convince the authors of BIP141 to modify their BIP? Could someone
inform me on the next part of the process?

On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 8:25 AM, Sancho Panza via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> Tom Zander wrote:
>
> > The version field is still needed to actually allow future block version
> upgrades. We would cut off our road forward if that were to be blocked.
>
> I tend to agree, if all 32 bits were given up to grinding.
>
> But it's worth pointing out that BIP9 is purely informational, and the top
> 3 bits are still reserved for other purposes. One of them could perhaps be
> used to signal for an extended version field somewhere else, leaving the
> bottom 29 as entropy?
>
> Not a direction I prefer, but just a technical possibility perhaps.
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1860 bytes --]