Currently the only implementation that fulfills the requirements of the NYA agreement is the segwit2x/btc1 implementation, which is being finalized this week. Segwit2mb does not fulfill the NYA agreement. I'm asking now the segwit2x development team when a BIP will be ready so that Core has the opportunity to evaluate the technical proposal. On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 1:05 AM, Jacob Eliosoff via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > Well, this Saturday's "Chinese roundtable" statement from a bunch of > miners (https://pastebin.com/b3St9VCF) says they intend "NYA" in the > coinbase as support for "the New York consensus SegWit2x program btc1 ( > https://github.com/btc1)", whose code includes the (accelerated > 336-block) BIP 91 change. So, other facts or interpretations could come to > light, but until they do we should probably assume that's what the "NYA" > (which just broke 80% over the last 24h) means. > > > On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 10:11 PM, Mark Friedenbach > wrote: > >> 80% have set "NYA" in their coinbase string. We have no idea what that >> means. People are equating it to BIP 91 -- but BIP 91 did not exist at >> the time of the New York agreement, and differs from the actual text >> of the NYA in substantive ways. The "Segwit2MB" that existed at the >> time of the NYA, and which was explicitly referenced by the text is >> the proposal by Sergio Demian Lerner that was made to this mailing >> list on 31 March. The text of the NYA grants no authority for >> upgrading this proposal while remaining compliant with the agreement. >> This is without even considering the fact that in the days after the >> NYA there was disagreement among those who signed it as to what it >> meant. >> >> I feel it is a very dangerous and unwarranted assumption people are >> making that what we are seeing now is either 80% support for BIP-91 or >> for the code in the btc1 repo. >> >> On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 6:36 PM, Erik Aronesty wrote: >> > # Jacob Eliosoff: >> > >> >> will start orphaning non-bit-1 blocks before Aug 1, and we avoid a >> split. >> > >> > Correct. There are 2 short activation periods in BIP91 either of which >> > would avoid a split. >> > >> > # Gregory Maxwell: >> > >> >> unclear to me _exactly_ what it would need to implement to be >> consistent. >> > >> > This is the relevant pull req to core: >> > >> > https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10444 >> > >> > Seems OK. It's technically running now on testnet5. I think it (or a >> > -bip148 option) should be merged as soon as feasible. >> > >> >> previously debunked "XT" and "Classic" hysteria. >> > >> > apples vs oranges, imo. segwit is not a contentious feature. the >> > "bundling" in segwit2x is, but that's not the issue here. the issue >> is we >> > are indirectly requiring miners that strongly support segwit to install >> > consensus protocol changes outside of bitcoin's standard reference. >> 80% of >> > them have signaled they will do so. these are uncharted waters. >> > >> > >> > On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 6:57 PM, Jacob Eliosoff via bitcoin-dev >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> I could be wrong, but the latest BIP91 implementation (also included in >> >> Segwit2x) cuts the activation period to 336 blocks (2.33 days). (This >> has >> >> been updated at >> >> https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0091.mediawiki.) So >> if 80% >> >> of hashpower is actually running that code and signaling on bit 4 by >> July 25 >> >> or so, then those 80+% will start orphaning non-bit-1 blocks before >> Aug 1, >> >> and we avoid a split. >> >> >> >> There may still be a few non-bit-1 blocks that get orphaned after Aug >> 1, >> >> because they're mined by old BIP141 nodes. But it seems like very few >> >> miners won't be signaling either Segwit2x *or* BIP141 by then... >> >> >> >> Make sense? >> >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 6:48 PM, Mark Friedenbach < >> mark@friedenbach.org> >> >> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> Why do you say activation by August 1st is likely? That would require >> an >> >>> entire difficulty adjustment period with >=95% bit1 signaling. That >> seems a >> >>> tall order to organize in the scant few weeks remaining. >> >>> >> >>> On Jun 20, 2017, at 3:29 PM, Jacob Eliosoff via bitcoin-dev >> >>> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> If segwit is activated before Aug 1, as now seems likely, there will >> be >> >>> no split that day. But if activation is via Segwit2x (also likely), >> and at >> >>> least some nodes do & some don't follow through with the HF 3mo later >> >>> (again, likely), agreed w/ Greg that *then* we'll see a split - >> probably in >> >>> Sep/Oct. How those two chains will match up and how the split will >> play out >> >>> is anyone's guess... >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> On Jun 20, 2017 6:16 PM, "Hampus Sjöberg via bitcoin-dev" >> >>> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> > Ironically, it looks like most of the segwit2x signaling miners are >> >>> > faking it (because they're not signaling segwit which it requires). >> >>> > It'll be unfortunate if some aren't faking it and start orphaning >> >>> > their own blocks because they are failing to signal segwit. >> >>> >> >>> Well, they're doing some kind of "pre-signaling" in the coinbase at >> the >> >>> moment, because the segwit2x project is still in alpha-phase >> according to >> >>> the timeline. They're just showing commitment. >> >>> I'm sure they will begin signaling on version bit 4/BIP91 as well as >> >>> actually running a segwit2x node when the time comes. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> > As far as prevent a chain split goes, all those things >> >>> > (148/91/segwit2x(per today)) effectively guarantee a chainsplit-- >> so I >> >>> > don't think that holds. >> >>> >> >>> Segwit2x/BIP91/BIP148 will orphan miners that do not run a Segwit2x >> (or >> >>> BIP148) node, because they wouldn't have the new consensus rule of >> requiring >> >>> all blocks to signal for segwit. >> >>> I don't believe there would be any long lasting chainsplit though >> >>> (because of the ~80% hashrate support on segwit2x), perhaps 2-3 >> blocks if we >> >>> get unlucky. >> >>> >> >>> Hampus >> >>> >> >>> 2017-06-20 23:49 GMT+02:00 Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev >> >>> : >> >>>> >> >>>> On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 3:44 PM, Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev >> >>>> wrote: >> >>>> > Because a large percentage of miners are indifferent, right now >> miners >> >>>> > have >> >>>> > to choose between BIP148 and Segwit2x if they want to activate >> Segwit. >> >>>> >> >>>> Miners can simply continuing signaling segwit, which will leave them >> >>>> at least soft-fork compatible with BIP148 and BIP91 (and god knows >> >>>> what "segwit2x" is since they keep changing the actual definition and >> >>>> do not have a specification; but last I saw the near-term behavior >> the >> >>>> same as BIP91 but with a radically reduced activation window, so the >> >>>> story would be the same there in the near term). >> >>>> >> >>>> Ironically, it looks like most of the segwit2x signaling miners are >> >>>> faking it (because they're not signaling segwit which it requires). >> >>>> It'll be unfortunate if some aren't faking it and start orphaning >> >>>> their own blocks because they are failing to signal segwit. >> >>>> >> >>>> I don't think the rejection of segwit2x from Bitcoin's developers >> >>>> could be any more resolute than what we've already seen: >> >>>> https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Segwit_support >> >>>> >> >>>> On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 5:22 PM, Mark Friedenbach via bitcoin-dev >> >>>> wrote: >> >>>> > I think it is very naïve to assume that any shift would be >> temporary. >> >>>> > We have a hard enough time getting miners to proactively upgrade to >> >>>> > recent versions of the reference bitcoin daemon. If miners >> interpret >> >>>> > the situation as being forced to run non-reference software in >> order >> >>>> > to prevent a chain split because a lack of support from Bitcoin >> Core, >> >>>> > that could be a one-way street. >> >>>> >> >>>> I think this is somewhat naive and sounds a lot like the repeat of >> the >> >>>> previously debunked "XT" and "Classic" hysteria. >> >>>> >> >>>> There is a reason that segwit2x is pretty much unanimously rejected >> by >> >>>> the technical community. And just like with XT/Classic/Unlimited >> >>>> you'll continue to see a strong correlation with people who are >> >>>> unwilling and unable to keep updating the software at an acceptable >> >>>> level of quality-- esp. because the very founding on their fork is >> >>>> predicated on discarding those properties. >> >>>> >> >>>> If miners want to go off and create an altcoin-- welp, thats >> something >> >>>> they can always do, and nothing about that will force anyone to go >> >>>> along with it. >> >>>> >> >>>> As far as prevent a chain split goes, all those things >> >>>> (148/91/segwit2x(per today)) effectively guarantee a chainsplit-- so >> I >> >>>> don't think that holds. >> >>>> _______________________________________________ >> >>>> bitcoin-dev mailing list >> >>>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org >> >>>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> _______________________________________________ >> >>> bitcoin-dev mailing list >> >>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org >> >>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> _______________________________________________ >> >>> bitcoin-dev mailing list >> >>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org >> >>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> bitcoin-dev mailing list >> >> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org >> >> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >> >> >> > >> > > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > >