I think we should go for 75%, same Litecoin. As I have said before, 95% threshold is too high even for unconventional soft forks.
> 在 2017年5月24日，04:58，Andrew Chow via bitcoin-dev > <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> 写道： > > Ah. I see now. It wasn't very clear to me that that is what will happen. > > Also, shouldn't the timeout date be set for before the BIP141 timeout? > Otherwise this could lock in but not have enough time for Segwit to be > locked in. > > >> On 5/23/2017 4:42 PM, James Hilliard wrote: >> That is incorrect, it is compatible with the current segwit >> implementation because it triggers a mandatory signalling period that >> will activate segwit on existing nodes. >> >> On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 4:39 PM, Andrew Chow via bitcoin-dev >> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: >>> Hi James, >>> >>> From what I understand, this proposal is incompatible with the current >>> segwit implementation with regards to the NODE_WITNESS service bit. I >>> believe it could cause network partitioning if the service bit is not >>> changed. >>> >>> Andrew >>> >>> >>>> On 5/22/2017 6:40 PM, James Hilliard via bitcoin-dev wrote: >>>> I would like to propose an implementation that accomplishes the first >>>> part of the Barry Silbert proposal independently from the second: >>>> >>>> "Activate Segregated Witness at an 80% threshold, signaling at bit 4" >>>> in a way that >>>> >>>> The goal here is to minimize chain split risk and network disruption >>>> while maximizing backwards compatibility and still providing for rapid >>>> activation of segwit at the 80% threshold using bit 4. >>>> >>>> By activating segwit immediately and separately from any HF we can >>>> scale quickly without risking a rushed combined segwit+HF that would >>>> almost certainly cause widespread issues. >>>> >>>> Draft proposal: >>>> https://github.com/jameshilliard/bips/blob/bip-segsignal/bip-segsignal.mediawiki >>>> >>>> Proposal text: >>>> <pre> >>>> BIP: segsignal >>>> Layer: Consensus (soft fork) >>>> Title: Reduced signalling threshold activation of existing segwit >>>> deployment >>>> Author: James Hilliard <james.hillia...@gmail.com> >>>> Status: Draft >>>> Type: Standards Track >>>> Created: 2017-05-22 >>>> License: BSD-3-Clause >>>> CC0-1.0 >>>> </pre> >>>> >>>> ==Abstract== >>>> >>>> This document specifies a method to activate the existing BIP9 segwit >>>> deployment with a majority hashpower less than 95%. >>>> >>>> ==Definitions== >>>> >>>> "existing segwit deployment" refer to the BIP9 "segwit" deployment >>>> using bit 1, between November 15th 2016 and November 15th 2017 to >>>> activate BIP141, BIP143 and BIP147. >>>> >>>> ==Motivation== >>>> >>>> Segwit increases the blocksize, fixes transaction malleability, and >>>> makes scripting easier to upgrade as well as bringing many other >>>> [https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/01/26/segwit-benefits/ benefits]. >>>> >>>> This BIP provides a way for a simple majority of miners to coordinate >>>> activation of the existing segwit deployment with less than 95% >>>> hashpower. For a number of reasons a complete redeployment of segwit >>>> is difficulty to do until the existing deployment expires. This 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. A redeployment of segwit will need to redefine all these >>>> things and doing so before expiry would greatly complicate testing. >>>> >>>> ==Specification== >>>> >>>> While this BIP is active, all blocks must set the nVersion header top >>>> 3 bits to 001 together with bit field (1<<1) (according to the >>>> existing segwit deployment). Blocks that do not signal as required >>>> will be rejected. >>>> >>>> ==Deployment== >>>> >>>> This BIP will be deployed by a "version bits" with an 80%(this can be >>>> adjusted if desired) activation threshold BIP9 with the name >>>> "segsignal" and using bit 4. >>>> >>>> This BIP will have a start time of midnight June 1st, 2017 (epoch time >>>> 1496275200) and timeout on midnight November 15th 2017 (epoch time >>>> 1510704000). This BIP will cease to be active when segwit is >>>> locked-in. >>>> >>>> === Reference implementation === >>>> >>>> <pre> >>>> // Check if Segregated Witness is Locked In >>>> bool IsWitnessLockedIn(const CBlockIndex* pindexPrev, const >>>> Consensus::Params& params) >>>> { >>>> LOCK(cs_main); >>>> return (VersionBitsState(pindexPrev, params, >>>> Consensus::DEPLOYMENT_SEGWIT, versionbitscache) == >>>> THRESHOLD_LOCKED_IN); >>>> } >>>> >>>> // SEGSIGNAL mandatory segwit signalling. >>>> if ( VersionBitsState(pindex->pprev, chainparams.GetConsensus(), >>>> Consensus::DEPLOYMENT_SEGSIGNAL, versionbitscache) == THRESHOLD_ACTIVE >>>> && >>>> !IsWitnessLockedIn(pindex->pprev, chainparams.GetConsensus()) && >>>> // Segwit is not locked in >>>> !IsWitnessEnabled(pindex->pprev, chainparams.GetConsensus()) ) // >>>> and is not active. >>>> { >>>> bool fVersionBits = (pindex->nVersion & VERSIONBITS_TOP_MASK) == >>>> VERSIONBITS_TOP_BITS; >>>> bool fSegbit = (pindex->nVersion & >>>> VersionBitsMask(chainparams.GetConsensus(), >>>> Consensus::DEPLOYMENT_SEGWIT)) != 0; >>>> if (!(fVersionBits && fSegbit)) { >>>> return state.DoS(0, error("ConnectBlock(): relayed block must >>>> signal for segwit, please upgrade"), REJECT_INVALID, "bad-no-segwit"); >>>> } >>>> } >>>> </pre> >>>> >>>> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/0.14...jameshilliard:segsignal-v0.14.1 >>>> >>>> ==Backwards Compatibility== >>>> >>>> This deployment is compatible with the existing "segwit" bit 1 >>>> deployment scheduled between midnight November 15th, 2016 and midnight >>>> November 15th, 2017. Miners will need to upgrade their nodes to >>>> support segsignal otherwise they may build on top of an invalid block. >>>> While this bip is active users should either upgrade to segsignal or >>>> wait for additional confirmations when accepting payments. >>>> >>>> ==Rationale== >>>> >>>> Historically we have used IsSuperMajority() to activate soft forks >>>> such as BIP66 which has a mandatory signalling requirement for miners >>>> once activated, this ensures that miners are aware of new rules being >>>> enforced. This technique can be leveraged to lower the signalling >>>> threshold of a soft fork while it is in the process of being deployed >>>> in a backwards compatible way. >>>> >>>> By orphaning non-signalling blocks during the BIP9 bit 1 "segwit" >>>> deployment, this BIP can cause the existing "segwit" deployment to >>>> activate without needing to release a new deployment. >>>> >>>> ==References== >>>> >>>> *[https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-March/013714.html >>>> Mailing list discussion] >>>> *[https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/v0.6.0/src/main.cpp#L1281-L1283 >>>> P2SH flag day activation] >>>> *[[bip-0009.mediawiki|BIP9 Version bits with timeout and delay]] >>>> *[[bip-0016.mediawiki|BIP16 Pay to Script Hash]] >>>> *[[bip-0141.mediawiki|BIP141 Segregated Witness (Consensus layer)]] >>>> *[[bip-0143.mediawiki|BIP143 Transaction Signature Verification for >>>> Version 0 Witness Program]] >>>> *[[bip-0147.mediawiki|BIP147 Dealing with dummy stack element >>>> malleability]] >>>> *[[bip-0148.mediawiki|BIP148 Mandatory activation of segwit deployment]] >>>> *[[bip-0149.mediawiki|BIP149 Segregated Witness (second deployment)]] >>>> *[https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/01/26/segwit-benefits/ Segwit benefits] >>>> >>>> ==Copyright== >>>> >>>> This document is dual licensed as BSD 3-clause, and Creative Commons >>>> CC0 1.0 Universal. >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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
