Although it is technically possible to bundle 2 independent softforks in one release, it increases the burden of testing and maintenance. We need to test and prepare for 4 scenarios: both not activated, only NULLDUMMY activated, only SEGWIT activated, and both activated.
Also, as we learnt from BIP66, softfork activation could be risky. It is evident that today a non-negligible percentage of miners are hard-coding the block version number. This increases the risks of softfork transition as miners may not enforce what they are signaling (btw this is also happening on testnet) Making 2 independently softforks would double the risks, and I believe NULLDUMMY alone is not worth the risks. > On September 2, 2016 at 1:10 PM Tom Harding via bitcoin-dev > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 9/1/2016 9:40 PM, Johnson Lau via bitcoin-dev wrote: > > This BIP will be deployed by "version bits" BIP9 using the same parameters > > for BIP141 and BIP143, with the name "segwit" and using bit 1. > > > > This fix has value outside of segwit. Why bundle the two together? > Shouldn't miners have to opportunity to vote on them independently? > > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
