[bitcoin-dev] Start time for BIP141 (segwit)

Hello all, We're getting ready for Bitcoin Core's 0.13.1 release - the first one to include segregated witness (BIP 141, 143, 144, 145) for Bitcoin mainnet, after being extensively tested on testnet and in other software. Following the BIP9 recommendation [1] to set the versionbits start time a

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP 2 revival and rework

On Saturday, 15 October 2016 17:02:30 CEST Marco Falke wrote: > >> BIP 2 does not forbid you to release your work under PD in > >> legislations where this is possible > > > > It does, actually. > > Huh, I can't find it in the text I read. The text mentions "not > acceptable", but I don't read

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Start time for BIP141 (segwit)

The fallow period sounds wy to short. I suggest 2 months at minimum since anyone that wants to be safe needs to upgrade. Also, please comment on why you won't use the much more safe and much smaller Flexible Transactions. On Sunday, 16 October 2016 16:31:55 CEST Pieter Wuille via

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Start time for BIP141 (segwit)

Hello, Excellent news that segregated witness is nearing release for the mainnet. I know I don't only speak for myself in saying that this has been eagerly awaited for some time. For the timing, I'd support segwit being usable on the network as soon as is technically and safely possible. We at

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Start time for BIP141 (segwit)

This is completely wrong. SPV wallets will work as normal without upgrade. Full nodes will only provide transactions to SPV in a format they understand, and SPV will accept the transaction since they are not doing any validation anyway. The only reason an end user may want to upgrade is for

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Start time for BIP141 (segwit)

On Sunday, 16 October 2016 09:47:40 CEST Douglas Roark via bitcoin-dev wrote: > Would I want anyone to lose money due to faulty wallets? Of course not. > By the same token, devs have had almost a year to tinker with SegWit and > make sure the wallet isn't so poorly written that it'll flame out

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Start time for BIP141 (segwit)

Before getting to my reply to Tom's message, I forgot to give my thoughts on the Nov. 15 date. I think it's a reasonable date. With various holidays coming up in the West, it's probably best to get the word out now so that work can progress before some people get sucked into family obligations and

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Start time for BIP141 (segwit)

On Sunday, 16 October 2016 12:35:58 CEST Gavin Andresen wrote: > On Sun, Oct 16, 2016 at 10:58 AM, Tom Zander via bitcoin-dev < > > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > The fallow period sounds wy to short. I suggest 2 months at minimum > > since anyone that wants to be safe

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Start time for BIP141 (segwit)

If somebody is not "running their own validation code" then they aren't actually using Bitcoin, so their ease in transition is irrelevant. For all they know they are accepting random numbers. e > On Oct 16, 2016, at 9:35 AM, Gavin Andresen via bitcoin-dev >

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Start time for BIP141 (segwit)

This start time seems reasonable to me. It is mostly in line with BIP 9's proposed defaults, which seems like an appropriate choice. On October 16, 2016 10:31:55 AM EDT, Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev wrote: >Hello all, > >We're getting ready for Bitcoin

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Start time for BIP141 (segwit)

On Sunday, 16 October 2016 20:41:34 CEST Jorge Timón wrote: > You keep insisting on "2 months after activation", but that's not how > BIP9 works. We could at most change BIP9's initial date, but if those > who haven't started to work on supporting segwit will keep waiting for > activation, then

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Start time for BIP141 (segwit)

I can see how it looks but actually most of the underlying libraries have already been adapted or are almost finished being adapted for segwit. Since segwit is not live on mainnet, most are not released (either still in PR form or merged to a development branch). As a software developer, I think

Re: [bitcoin-dev] On the security of soft forks

I highly recommend you read the excellent thread on soft fork risks at https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-December/012014.html and respond there instead of getting off topic for this thread. Matt On 10/16/16 16:42, Tom Zander via bitcoin-dev wrote: > On Sunday, 16

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Start time for BIP141 (segwit)

On 2016/10/16 09:35, Gavin Andresen via bitcoin-dev wrote: > I asked a lot of businesses and individuals how long it would take them > to upgrade to a new release over the last year or two. > > Nobody said it would take them more than two weeks. > > If somebody is running their own validation

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Start time for BIP141 (segwit)

As has been mentioned there have been a lot of time to upgrade software to support segwit. Furthermore, since it is a softfork, there will be plenty of time after activation too for those taking a "wait and see" approach. You keep insisting on "2 months after activation", but that's not how BIP9

Re: [bitcoin-dev] (no subject)

You keep calling flexible transactions "safer", and yet you haven't mentioned that the current codebase is riddled with blatant and massive security holes. For example, you seem to have misunderstood C++'s memory model - you would have no less than three out-of-bound, probably exploitable memory

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Start time for BIP141 (segwit)

On Monday, 17 October 2016 03:11:23 CEST Johnson Lau wrote: > > Honestly, if the reason for the too-short-for-safety timespan is that > > you > > want to use BIP9, then please take a step back and realize that SegWit > > is a contriversial soft-fork that needs to be deployed in a way that is > >

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Start time for BIP141 (segwit)

On Sun, Oct 16, 2016 at 10:58 AM, Tom Zander via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > The fallow period sounds wy to short. I suggest 2 months at minimum > since anyone that wants to be safe needs to upgrade. > I asked a lot of businesses and individuals how long it

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Start time for BIP141 (segwit)

On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 02:54:04 +0800 Tom Zander via bitcoin-dev wrote > Honestly, if the reason for the too-short-for-safety timespan is that you > want to use BIP9, then please take a step back and realize that SegWit is a >

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Start time for BIP141 (segwit)

On Sunday, 16 October 2016 12:49:47 CEST Douglas Roark via bitcoin-dev wrote: > It's not the website's fault if wallet devs aren't updating their > statuses. Besides, "WIP" can mean an awful lot of things. As I said, it would be nice to get an updated version so we can see more than 20%

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Start time for BIP141 (segwit)

It's controversial not contriversial. And it isn't controversial except among a small clique, which you seem to be the sole representative of here. It might be time to consider unsubscribing (again) if you don't seem to know when to shut up and the moderators are letting you go on an

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Start time for BIP141 (segwit)

On Sun, Oct 16, 2016 at 10:58 PM, Tom Zander via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > On Sunday, 16 October 2016 12:49:47 CEST Douglas Roark via bitcoin-dev > wrote: > > It's not the website's fault if wallet devs aren't updating their > > statuses. Besides, "WIP" can

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Start time for BIP141 (segwit)

On 10/16/2016 4:58 PM, Tom Zander via bitcoin-dev wrote: > Lets get back to the topic. Having a longer fallow period is a simple way to > be safe. Your comments make me even more scared that safety is not taken > into account the way it would. Can you please explain how having a longer grace

Re: [bitcoin-dev] (no subject)

On Sunday, 16 October 2016 19:35:52 CEST Matt Corallo wrote: > You keep calling flexible transactions "safer", and yet you haven't > mentioned that the current codebase is riddled with blatant and massive > security holes. I am not afraid of people finding issues with my code, I'm only human.

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Start time for BIP141 (segwit)

On Sun, Oct 16, 2016 at 04:31:55PM +0200, Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev wrote: > Hello all, > > We're getting ready for Bitcoin Core's 0.13.1 release - the first one > to include segregated witness (BIP 141, 143, 144, 145) for Bitcoin > mainnet, after being extensively tested on testnet and in

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Start time for BIP141 (segwit)

On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 04:08:29 +0800 Tom Zander via bitcoin-dev wrote > On Monday, 17 October 2016 03:11:23 CEST Johnson Lau wrote: > > > Honestly, if the reason for the too-short-for-safety timespan is that > > > you > > > want to use