It would also help to see the actual code changes required, which I'm sure will be much shorter than the explanation itself. On May 27, 2015 5:47 AM, "Luke Dashjr" <l...@dashjr.org> wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 27, 2015 1:48:05 AM Pieter Wuille wrote: > > Feel free to comment. As the gist does not support notifying participants > > of new comments, I would suggest using the mailing list instead. > > I suggest adding a section describing how this interacts with and changes > GBT. > > Currently, the client tells the server what the highest block version it > supports is, and the server indicates a block version to use in its > template, > as well as optional instructions for the client to forcefully use this > version > despite its own maximum version number. Making the version a bitfield > contradicts the increment-only assumption of this design, and since GBT > clients are not aware of overall network consensus state, reused bits can > easily become confused. I suggest, therefore, that GBT clients should > indicate > (instead of a maximum supported version number) a list of softforks by > identifier keyword, and the GBT server respond with a template indicating: > - An object of softfork keywords to bit values, that the server will > accept. > - The version number, as presently conveyed, indicating the preferred > softfork > flags. > > Does this sound reasonable, and/or am I missing anything else? > > Luke > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > _______________________________________________ > Bitcoin-development mailing list > Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development >
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
