Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP proposal: Generalized version bits voting (bip-genvbvoting)

2017-04-05 Thread Thomas Kerin via bitcoin-dev
A schism is just that: miners can't ameliorate a HF transition in the way they can censor transactions without permission. This is how miners became a convenient way to activate soft-forks. So while BIP9 can indicate the later censorship (a soft fork) in a way that nodes can follow (or not) a

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP proposal: Generalized version bits voting (bip-genvbvoting)

2017-04-05 Thread Tom Zander via bitcoin-dev
On Tuesday, 4 April 2017 20:01:51 CEST Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev wrote: > BIP 9 provides a mechanism for having > miners coordinate softforks because they can make the upgrade process > smoother this way. But the same is not true of hardforks: miners are > essentially irrelevant to them, and

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP proposal: Generalized version bits voting (bip-genvbvoting)

2017-04-04 Thread Sancho Panza via bitcoin-dev
> BIP 9 doesn't limit itself, merely acknowledges the *inherent* nature of it > not being applicable to hardforks. BIP 9 provides a mechanism for having > miners coordinate softforks because they can make the upgrade process smoother > this way. But the same is not true of hardforks: miners are

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP proposal: Generalized version bits voting (bip-genvbvoting)

2017-04-04 Thread Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev
On Monday, April 03, 2017 9:06:02 AM Sancho Panza via bitcoin-dev wrote: > While BIP9 has served the community reasonably well until now, the > author remarks several shortcomings in its approach: > > - it limits itself to backward-compatible changes, precluding its > applicability to hard forks

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP proposal: Generalized version bits voting (bip-genvbvoting)

2017-04-04 Thread Sancho Panza via bitcoin-dev
[Apologies, reposting this in an attempt to improve on the botched formatting of previous reply. I am still getting used to the limitations of this mail service.] Thanks for the feedback. I'll post a link to more refined proposal on github once that elaboration is more complete. For now I

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP proposal: Generalized version bits voting (bip-genvbvoting)

2017-04-04 Thread Sancho Panza via bitcoin-dev
Thanks for the feedback. I'll post a link to more refined proposal on github once that elaboration is more complete. For now I think more discussion will be very helpful. I think the flexibility around the tallying window size will take the most careful consideration, so that a user of this

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP proposal: Generalized version bits voting (bip-genvbvoting)

2017-04-04 Thread Tom Zander via bitcoin-dev
On Monday, 3 April 2017 11:06:02 CEST Sancho Panza wrote: > ==Specification== > > To be elaborated. Please do elaborate :) The meat of the proposal is missing. > It is thought that only cosmetic changes are needed to generalize from > only soft forks to 'soft or hard forks', and to add the

[bitcoin-dev] BIP proposal: Generalized version bits voting (bip-genvbvoting)

2017-04-03 Thread Sancho Panza via bitcoin-dev
�Hola! Please find below a proposal [resubmission] for a new informational BIP provisionally named 'bip-genvbvoting'. I present it here in rough draft for your esteemed consideration and as a basis for discussion. Best regards, Sancho --- begin draft of bip-genvbvoting --- ==Preamble== BIP: