On Saturday, 27 May 2017 01:09:10 CEST James Hilliard wrote: > > why? > > the main > issue is due to 0.13.1+ having many segwit related features active > already, including all the P2P components, the new network service > flag, the witness-tx and block messages, compact blocks v2 and > preferential peering.
Hmm, the flags are identical in 0.13 and 0.14 clients. Either way, this is rather trivial to solve. If bugs in older clients mean they can’t operate properly when SW is activated (via bit 4) but they don’t know its activated (since they only look at bit1), then just ban them when they misbehave. And tell people to upgrade to a version where SegWit is less buggy. > You would have to then have multiple activation > codepaths to test for such as BIP141(active)->HF BIP141(inactive)->HF > etc. By doing BIP141 first you then only have the BIP141(active)->HF > activation codepath to test for, and you also can't be sure you can > rely on BIP141(inactive)->HF activation codepath being the only one > until segwit activation expires. Heh, well, this is rather simple to solve by not having all those activation codepaths and just picking **one**. You can safely replace the bit1 activation code with a bit4 activation logic, which is based on 80% and has no end-date. We both know that the bip9 (bit1) based activation will not trigger before the expiration date anyway. These worries are rather trivial to solve if you do a little bit of proper architecture of the solution. This honestly can’t be a reason for saying NO to the majority of the mining hash power giving you a break and offering a better SegWit activation. -- Tom Zander Blog: https://zander.github.io Vlog: https://vimeo.com/channels/tomscryptochannel _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
