[bitcoin-dev] Moving towards user activated soft fork activation

2017-02-25 Thread shaolinfry via bitcoin-dev
Some thoughts about the activation mechanism for soft forks. In the past we used IsSuperMajority and currently use BIP9 as soft fork activation methods, where a supermajority of hashrate triggers nodes to begin enforcing new rules. Hashrate based activation is convenient because it is the

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Moving towards user activated soft fork activation

2017-02-27 Thread shaolinfry via bitcoin-dev
strategy, both hashrate or flag day based. Many thanks for taking the time to read over and consider my thoughts and proposal. I would be happy to discuss more if you have any further questions or suggestions. - Jameson On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 6:55 PM, shaolinfry via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-

[bitcoin-dev] Draft BIP: Version bits extension with guaranteed lock-in

2017-04-06 Thread shaolinfry via bitcoin-dev
After some thought I managed to simplify the original uaversionbits proposal introducing a simple boolean flag to guarantee lock-in of a BIP9 deployment by the timeout. This seems to be the simplest form combining optional flag day activation with BIP9. This brings the best of both worlds

Re: [bitcoin-dev] I do not support the BIP 148 UASF

2017-04-20 Thread shaolinfry via bitcoin-dev
Dear Greg, Thank you for taking the time to review the BIP148 proposal. I agree with much of your thoughts. I originally started working on a generalized way to deploy user activated soft forks, in a way that leveraged BIP9 to allow for optional faster MASF activation. BIP148 came about as a

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Flag day activation of segwit

2017-03-13 Thread shaolinfry via bitcoin-dev
1, "If all transactions in a block do not have witness data, the commitment is optional." Segwit is activated, but useless. Miners who *do* adopt segwit will lose money, as their blocks are orphaned. Thanks, --Nick On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 9:50 AM, shaolinfry via bitco

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Flag day activation of segwit

2017-03-13 Thread shaolinfry via bitcoin-dev
From: l...@dashjr.org On Sunday, March 12, 2017 3:50:27 PM shaolinfry via bitcoin-dev wrote: > // mandatory segwit activation between Oct 1st 2017 and Nov 15th 2017 > inclusive if (pindex->GetMedianTimePast() >= 1538352000 && > pindex->GetMedianTimePast() <= 1510

[bitcoin-dev] Flag day activation of segwit

2017-03-12 Thread shaolinfry via bitcoin-dev
I recently posted about so called "user activated soft forks" and received a lot of feedback. Much of this was how such methodologies could be applied to segwit which appears to have fallen under the miner veto category I explained in my original proposal, where there is apparently a lot of

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Moving towards user activated soft fork activation

2017-03-12 Thread shaolinfry via bitcoin-dev
Thank you all for the insightful feedback, on list, in private and on various social media platforms. I have extended the generalized proposal which extends BIP9. This basically introduces an extra workflow state if activationtime > starttime and < timeout - 1 month. It allows extra business

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Flag day activation of segwit

2017-03-12 Thread shaolinfry via bitcoin-dev
Before setting a flag day, I think we should get written cooperation agreements from the largest economic players in Bitcoin. This would include: There isn't a flag day to set. If the major economic organs like exchanges run the BIP, non-signalling miners simply wont get paid (starting October

Re: [bitcoin-dev] extended BIP9 activation of segwit, for legacy nodes

2017-04-14 Thread shaolinfry via bitcoin-dev
You might be interested in my bip-uaversionbits proposal https://github.com/shaolinfry/bips/blob/bip-uavb/bip-uaversionbits.mediawiki Segwit has proven more contentious to activate than anticipated (although my read has long been that the technical consensus is clear, despite noisy objections).

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Height based vs block time based thresholds

2017-07-04 Thread shaolinfry via bitcoin-dev
rge. > On Wednesday 05 July 2017 1:30:26 AM shaolinfry via bitcoin-dev wrote: >> Some people have criticized BIP9"s blocktime based thresholds arguing they >> are confusing (the first retarget after threshold). It is also vulnerable >> to miners fiddling with tim

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Height based vs block time based thresholds

2017-07-07 Thread shaolinfry via bitcoin-dev
I have written a height based reference implementation as well as updated the BIP text in the following proposals "lockinontimeout" was just an implementation detail to allow BIP8 the BIP9 implementation code. With the change to height based, we can dispense with it entirely. So the two

[bitcoin-dev] Height based vs block time based thresholds

2017-07-04 Thread shaolinfry via bitcoin-dev
Some people have criticized BIP9's blocktime based thresholds arguing they are confusing (the first retarget after threshold). It is also vulnerable to miners fiddling with timestamps in a way that could prevent or delay activation - for example by only advancing the block timestamp by 1 second

[bitcoin-dev] Draft BIP: Segwit deployment with versionbits and guaranteed lock-in

2017-04-26 Thread shaolinfry via bitcoin-dev
This is a draft BIP proposal to redeploy segwit using BIP-8, from the day after the current BIP9 segwit times out. This BIP could be deployed long before Nov 15th 2016, for example in July allowing wide deployment to begin soon. The timeout (and this useractivation) could be set to roughly a

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP149 timeout-- why so far in the future?

2017-05-26 Thread shaolinfry via bitcoin-dev
I agree the date can be brought forward. FWIW, I originally set the date far out enough that people wouldn't immediately fixate on the date and rather look at the meat of the proposal instead. Given that we saw around 70% of nodes upgrade to BIP141 in around 5/6 months, I dont see any reason

[bitcoin-dev] Barry Silbert segwit agreement

2017-05-22 Thread shaolinfry via bitcoin-dev
Someone sent me a copy of the Barry Silbert agreement, an agreement forged between a select number of participants https://pastebin.com/VuCYteJh Participants agree to immediately activate Segwit, however, under a different activation proposal. Since I have spent the last few months researching