[bitcoin-dev] Miners forced to run non-core code in order to get segwit activated

Discussion:

Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev

2017-06-20 15:44:36 UTC

Are we going to merge BIP91 or a -BIP148 option to core for inclusion in
the next release or so?

Because a large percentage of miners are indifferent, right now miners have
to choose between BIP148 and Segwit2x if they want to activate Segwit.

Should we be forcing miners to choose to run non-core code in order to
activate a popular feature?

- Erik

Hampus Sjöberg via bitcoin-dev

2017-06-20 16:49:38 UTC

Permalink

I don't think it's a huge deal if the miners need to run a non-Core node
once the BIP91 deployment of Segwit2x happens. The shift will most likely
be temporary.

I agree that the "-bip148"-option should be merged, though.

2017-06-20 17:44 GMT+02:00 Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev <

Post by Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev
Are we going to merge BIP91 or a -BIP148 option to core for inclusion in
the next release or so?
Because a large percentage of miners are indifferent, right now miners
have to choose between BIP148 and Segwit2x if they want to activate Segwit.
Should we be forcing miners to choose to run non-core code in order to
activate a popular feature?
- Erik
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

Mark Friedenbach via bitcoin-dev

2017-06-20 17:22:18 UTC

Permalink

I think it is very naïve to assume that any shift would be temporary.
We have a hard enough time getting miners to proactively upgrade to
recent versions of the reference bitcoin daemon. If miners interpret
the situation as being forced to run non-reference software in order
to prevent a chain split because a lack of support from Bitcoin Core,
that could be a one-way street.

On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 9:49 AM, Hampus Sjöberg via bitcoin-dev

Post by Hampus SjÃ¶berg via bitcoin-dev
I don't think it's a huge deal if the miners need to run a non-Core node
once the BIP91 deployment of Segwit2x happens. The shift will most likely be
temporary.
I agree that the "-bip148"-option should be merged, though.
2017-06-20 17:44 GMT+02:00 Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev

_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev

2017-06-20 21:49:50 UTC

Permalink

On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 3:44 PM, Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev

Post by Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev
Because a large percentage of miners are indifferent, right now miners have
to choose between BIP148 and Segwit2x if they want to activate Segwit.

Miners can simply continuing signaling segwit, which will leave them
at least soft-fork compatible with BIP148 and BIP91 (and god knows
what "segwit2x" is since they keep changing the actual definition and
do not have a specification; but last I saw the near-term behavior the
same as BIP91 but with a radically reduced activation window, so the
story would be the same there in the near term).

Ironically, it looks like most of the segwit2x signaling miners are
faking it (because they're not signaling segwit which it requires).
It'll be unfortunate if some aren't faking it and start orphaning
their own blocks because they are failing to signal segwit.

I don't think the rejection of segwit2x from Bitcoin's developers
could be any more resolute than what we've already seen:
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Segwit_support

On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 5:22 PM, Mark Friedenbach via bitcoin-dev

Post by Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev
I think it is very naïve to assume that any shift would be temporary.
We have a hard enough time getting miners to proactively upgrade to
recent versions of the reference bitcoin daemon. If miners interpret
the situation as being forced to run non-reference software in order
to prevent a chain split because a lack of support from Bitcoin Core,
that could be a one-way street.

I think this is somewhat naive and sounds a lot like the repeat of the
previously debunked "XT" and "Classic" hysteria.

There is a reason that segwit2x is pretty much unanimously rejected by
the technical community. And just like with XT/Classic/Unlimited
you'll continue to see a strong correlation with people who are
unwilling and unable to keep updating the software at an acceptable
level of quality-- esp. because the very founding on their fork is
predicated on discarding those properties.

If miners want to go off and create an altcoin-- welp, thats something
they can always do, and nothing about that will force anyone to go
along with it.

As far as prevent a chain split goes, all those things
(148/91/segwit2x(per today)) effectively guarantee a chainsplit-- so I
don't think that holds.

Hampus Sjöberg via bitcoin-dev

2017-06-20 22:15:59 UTC

Permalink

Post by Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev
Ironically, it looks like most of the segwit2x signaling miners are
faking it (because they're not signaling segwit which it requires).
It'll be unfortunate if some aren't faking it and start orphaning
their own blocks because they are failing to signal segwit.

Well, they're doing some kind of "pre-signaling" in the coinbase at the
moment, because the segwit2x project is still in alpha-phase according to
the timeline. They're just showing commitment.
I'm sure they will begin signaling on version bit 4/BIP91 as well as
actually running a segwit2x node when the time comes.

Post by Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev
As far as prevent a chain split goes, all those things
(148/91/segwit2x(per today)) effectively guarantee a chainsplit-- so I
don't think that holds.

Segwit2x/BIP91/BIP148 will orphan miners that do not run a Segwit2x (or
BIP148) node, because they wouldn't have the new consensus rule of
requiring all blocks to signal for segwit.
I don't believe there would be any long lasting chainsplit though (because
of the ~80% hashrate support on segwit2x), perhaps 2-3 blocks if we get
unlucky.

Hampus

2017-06-20 23:49 GMT+02:00 Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev <

Post by Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev
On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 3:44 PM, Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev

Post by Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev
Because a large percentage of miners are indifferent, right now miners

have

Post by Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev
to choose between BIP148 and Segwit2x if they want to activate Segwit.

Miners can simply continuing signaling segwit, which will leave them
at least soft-fork compatible with BIP148 and BIP91 (and god knows
what "segwit2x" is since they keep changing the actual definition and
do not have a specification; but last I saw the near-term behavior the
same as BIP91 but with a radically reduced activation window, so the
story would be the same there in the near term).
Ironically, it looks like most of the segwit2x signaling miners are
faking it (because they're not signaling segwit which it requires).
It'll be unfortunate if some aren't faking it and start orphaning
their own blocks because they are failing to signal segwit.
I don't think the rejection of segwit2x from Bitcoin's developers
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Segwit_support
On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 5:22 PM, Mark Friedenbach via bitcoin-dev

Post by Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev
I think it is very naÃ¯ve to assume that any shift would be temporary.
We have a hard enough time getting miners to proactively upgrade to
recent versions of the reference bitcoin daemon. If miners interpret
the situation as being forced to run non-reference software in order
to prevent a chain split because a lack of support from Bitcoin Core,
that could be a one-way street.

I think this is somewhat naive and sounds a lot like the repeat of the
previously debunked "XT" and "Classic" hysteria.
There is a reason that segwit2x is pretty much unanimously rejected by
the technical community. And just like with XT/Classic/Unlimited
you'll continue to see a strong correlation with people who are
unwilling and unable to keep updating the software at an acceptable
level of quality-- esp. because the very founding on their fork is
predicated on discarding those properties.
If miners want to go off and create an altcoin-- welp, thats something
they can always do, and nothing about that will force anyone to go
along with it.
As far as prevent a chain split goes, all those things
(148/91/segwit2x(per today)) effectively guarantee a chainsplit-- so I
don't think that holds.
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

Jacob Eliosoff via bitcoin-dev

2017-06-20 22:29:27 UTC

Permalink

If segwit is activated before Aug 1, as now seems likely, there will be no
split that day. But if activation is via Segwit2x (also likely), and at
least some nodes do & some don't follow through with the HF 3mo later
(again, likely), agreed w/ Greg that *then* we'll see a split - probably in
Sep/Oct. How those two chains will match up and how the split will play
out is anyone's guess...

On Jun 20, 2017 6:16 PM, "Hampus SjÃ¶berg via bitcoin-dev" <

Post by Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev
As far as prevent a chain split goes, all those things
(148/91/segwit2x(per today)) effectively guarantee a chainsplit-- so I
don't think that holds.

Post by Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev
On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 3:44 PM, Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev

Post by Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev
Because a large percentage of miners are indifferent, right now miners

have

Post by Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev
to choose between BIP148 and Segwit2x if they want to activate Segwit.

Miners can simply continuing signaling segwit, which will leave them
at least soft-fork compatible with BIP148 and BIP91 (and god knows
what "segwit2x" is since they keep changing the actual definition and
do not have a specification; but last I saw the near-term behavior the
same as BIP91 but with a radically reduced activation window, so the
story would be the same there in the near term).
Ironically, it looks like most of the segwit2x signaling miners are
faking it (because they're not signaling segwit which it requires).
It'll be unfortunate if some aren't faking it and start orphaning
their own blocks because they are failing to signal segwit.
I don't think the rejection of segwit2x from Bitcoin's developers
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Segwit_support
On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 5:22 PM, Mark Friedenbach via bitcoin-dev

I think this is somewhat naive and sounds a lot like the repeat of the
previously debunked "XT" and "Classic" hysteria.
There is a reason that segwit2x is pretty much unanimously rejected by
the technical community. And just like with XT/Classic/Unlimited
you'll continue to see a strong correlation with people who are
unwilling and unable to keep updating the software at an acceptable
level of quality-- esp. because the very founding on their fork is
predicated on discarding those properties.
If miners want to go off and create an altcoin-- welp, thats something
they can always do, and nothing about that will force anyone to go
along with it.
As far as prevent a chain split goes, all those things
(148/91/segwit2x(per today)) effectively guarantee a chainsplit-- so I
don't think that holds.
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

Mark Friedenbach via bitcoin-dev

2017-06-20 22:48:23 UTC

Permalink

Why do you say activation by August 1st is likely? That would require an entire difficulty adjustment period with >=95% bit1 signaling. That seems a tall order to organize in the scant few weeks remaining.

If segwit is activated before Aug 1, as now seems likely, there will be no split that day. But if activation is via Segwit2x (also likely), and at least some nodes do & some don't follow through with the HF 3mo later (again, likely), agreed w/ Greg that *then* we'll see a split - probably in Sep/Oct. How those two chains will match up and how the split will play out is anyone's guess...

Well, they're doing some kind of "pre-signaling" in the coinbase at the moment, because the segwit2x project is still in alpha-phase according to the timeline. They're just showing commitment.
I'm sure they will begin signaling on version bit 4/BIP91 as well as actually running a segwit2x node when the time comes.

Post by Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev
As far as prevent a chain split goes, all those things
(148/91/segwit2x(per today)) effectively guarantee a chainsplit-- so I
don't think that holds.

Segwit2x/BIP91/BIP148 will orphan miners that do not run a Segwit2x (or BIP148) node, because they wouldn't have the new consensus rule of requiring all blocks to signal for segwit.
I don't believe there would be any long lasting chainsplit though (because of the ~80% hashrate support on segwit2x), perhaps 2-3 blocks if we get unlucky.
Hampus

Post by Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev
On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 3:44 PM, Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev

Post by Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev
Because a large percentage of miners are indifferent, right now miners have
to choose between BIP148 and Segwit2x if they want to activate Segwit.

Miners can simply continuing signaling segwit, which will leave them
at least soft-fork compatible with BIP148 and BIP91 (and god knows
what "segwit2x" is since they keep changing the actual definition and
do not have a specification; but last I saw the near-term behavior the
same as BIP91 but with a radically reduced activation window, so the
story would be the same there in the near term).
Ironically, it looks like most of the segwit2x signaling miners are
faking it (because they're not signaling segwit which it requires).
It'll be unfortunate if some aren't faking it and start orphaning
their own blocks because they are failing to signal segwit.
I don't think the rejection of segwit2x from Bitcoin's developers
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Segwit_support
On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 5:22 PM, Mark Friedenbach via bitcoin-dev

I think this is somewhat naive and sounds a lot like the repeat of the
previously debunked "XT" and "Classic" hysteria.
There is a reason that segwit2x is pretty much unanimously rejected by
the technical community. And just like with XT/Classic/Unlimited
you'll continue to see a strong correlation with people who are
unwilling and unable to keep updating the software at an acceptable
level of quality-- esp. because the very founding on their fork is
predicated on discarding those properties.
If miners want to go off and create an altcoin-- welp, thats something
they can always do, and nothing about that will force anyone to go
along with it.
As far as prevent a chain split goes, all those things
(148/91/segwit2x(per today)) effectively guarantee a chainsplit-- so I
don't think that holds.
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

Jacob Eliosoff via bitcoin-dev

2017-06-20 22:57:34 UTC

Permalink

I could be wrong, but the latest BIP91 implementation (also included in
Segwit2x) cuts the activation period to 336 blocks (2.33 days). (This has
been updated at
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0091.mediawiki.) So if 80%
of hashpower is actually running that code and signaling on bit 4 by July
25 or so, then those 80+% will start orphaning non-bit-1 blocks before Aug
1, and we avoid a split.

There may still be a few non-bit-1 blocks that get orphaned after Aug 1,
because they're mined by old BIP141 nodes. But it seems like very few
miners won't be signaling either Segwit2x *or* BIP141 by then...

Make sense?

Post by Mark Friedenbach via bitcoin-dev
Why do you say activation by August 1st is likely? That would require an
entire difficulty adjustment period with >=95% bit1 signaling. That seems a
tall order to organize in the scant few weeks remaining.
On Jun 20, 2017, at 3:29 PM, Jacob Eliosoff via bitcoin-dev <
If segwit is activated before Aug 1, as now seems likely, there will be no
split that day. But if activation is via Segwit2x (also likely), and at
least some nodes do & some don't follow through with the HF 3mo later
(again, likely), agreed w/ Greg that *then* we'll see a split - probably in
Sep/Oct. How those two chains will match up and how the split will play
out is anyone's guess...
On Jun 20, 2017 6:16 PM, "Hampus SjÃ¶berg via bitcoin-dev" <

Post by Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev
As far as prevent a chain split goes, all those things
(148/91/segwit2x(per today)) effectively guarantee a chainsplit-- so I
don't think that holds.

Segwit2x/BIP91/BIP148 will orphan miners that do not run a Segwit2x (or
BIP148) node, because they wouldn't have the new consensus rule of
requiring all blocks to signal for segwit.
I don't believe there would be any long lasting chainsplit though (because
of the ~80% hashrate support on segwit2x), perhaps 2-3 blocks if we get
unlucky.
Hampus
2017-06-20 23:49 GMT+02:00 Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev <

Post by Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev
On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 3:44 PM, Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev

Post by Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev
Because a large percentage of miners are indifferent, right now miners

have

Post by Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev
to choose between BIP148 and Segwit2x if they want to activate Segwit.

Miners can simply continuing signaling segwit, which will leave them
at least soft-fork compatible with BIP148 and BIP91 (and god knows
what "segwit2x" is since they keep changing the actual definition and
do not have a specification; but last I saw the near-term behavior the
same as BIP91 but with a radically reduced activation window, so the
story would be the same there in the near term).
Ironically, it looks like most of the segwit2x signaling miners are
faking it (because they're not signaling segwit which it requires).
It'll be unfortunate if some aren't faking it and start orphaning
their own blocks because they are failing to signal segwit.
I don't think the rejection of segwit2x from Bitcoin's developers
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Segwit_support
On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 5:22 PM, Mark Friedenbach via bitcoin-dev

I think this is somewhat naive and sounds a lot like the repeat of the
previously debunked "XT" and "Classic" hysteria.
There is a reason that segwit2x is pretty much unanimously rejected by
the technical community. And just like with XT/Classic/Unlimited
you'll continue to see a strong correlation with people who are
unwilling and unable to keep updating the software at an acceptable
level of quality-- esp. because the very founding on their fork is
predicated on discarding those properties.
If miners want to go off and create an altcoin-- welp, thats something
they can always do, and nothing about that will force anyone to go
along with it.
As far as prevent a chain split goes, all those things
(148/91/segwit2x(per today)) effectively guarantee a chainsplit-- so I
don't think that holds.
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

Jacob Eliosoff via bitcoin-dev

2017-06-20 23:01:14 UTC

Permalink

(That is: "...because they're mined by old non-Segwit2x nodes that *aren't
signaling bit 1 support*", ie, that support neither Segwit2x nor old segwit)

Post by Jacob Eliosoff via bitcoin-dev
I could be wrong, but the latest BIP91 implementation (also included in
Segwit2x) cuts the activation period to 336 blocks (2.33 days). (This has
been updated at https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0091.
mediawiki.) So if 80% of hashpower is actually running that code and
signaling on bit 4 by July 25 or so, then those 80+% will start orphaning
non-bit-1 blocks before Aug 1, and we avoid a split.
There may still be a few non-bit-1 blocks that get orphaned after Aug 1,
because they're mined by old BIP141 nodes. But it seems like very few
miners won't be signaling either Segwit2x *or* BIP141 by then...
Make sense?

Post by Mark Friedenbach via bitcoin-dev
Why do you say activation by August 1st is likely? That would require an
entire difficulty adjustment period with >=95% bit1 signaling. That seems a
tall order to organize in the scant few weeks remaining.
On Jun 20, 2017, at 3:29 PM, Jacob Eliosoff via bitcoin-dev <
If segwit is activated before Aug 1, as now seems likely, there will be
no split that day. But if activation is via Segwit2x (also likely), and at
least some nodes do & some don't follow through with the HF 3mo later
(again, likely), agreed w/ Greg that *then* we'll see a split - probably in
Sep/Oct. How those two chains will match up and how the split will play
out is anyone's guess...
On Jun 20, 2017 6:16 PM, "Hampus SjÃ¶berg via bitcoin-dev" <

Post by Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev
As far as prevent a chain split goes, all those things
(148/91/segwit2x(per today)) effectively guarantee a chainsplit-- so I
don't think that holds.

Segwit2x/BIP91/BIP148 will orphan miners that do not run a Segwit2x (or
BIP148) node, because they wouldn't have the new consensus rule of
requiring all blocks to signal for segwit.
I don't believe there would be any long lasting chainsplit though
(because of the ~80% hashrate support on segwit2x), perhaps 2-3 blocks if
we get unlucky.
Hampus
2017-06-20 23:49 GMT+02:00 Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev <

Post by Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev
On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 3:44 PM, Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev

Post by Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev
Because a large percentage of miners are indifferent, right now miners

have

Post by Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev
to choose between BIP148 and Segwit2x if they want to activate Segwit.

Miners can simply continuing signaling segwit, which will leave them
at least soft-fork compatible with BIP148 and BIP91 (and god knows
what "segwit2x" is since they keep changing the actual definition and
do not have a specification; but last I saw the near-term behavior the
same as BIP91 but with a radically reduced activation window, so the
story would be the same there in the near term).
Ironically, it looks like most of the segwit2x signaling miners are
faking it (because they're not signaling segwit which it requires).
It'll be unfortunate if some aren't faking it and start orphaning
their own blocks because they are failing to signal segwit.
I don't think the rejection of segwit2x from Bitcoin's developers
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Segwit_support
On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 5:22 PM, Mark Friedenbach via bitcoin-dev

I think this is somewhat naive and sounds a lot like the repeat of the
previously debunked "XT" and "Classic" hysteria.
There is a reason that segwit2x is pretty much unanimously rejected by
the technical community. And just like with XT/Classic/Unlimited
you'll continue to see a strong correlation with people who are
unwilling and unable to keep updating the software at an acceptable
level of quality-- esp. because the very founding on their fork is
predicated on discarding those properties.
If miners want to go off and create an altcoin-- welp, thats something
they can always do, and nothing about that will force anyone to go
along with it.
As far as prevent a chain split goes, all those things
(148/91/segwit2x(per today)) effectively guarantee a chainsplit-- so I
don't think that holds.
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev

2017-06-21 01:36:49 UTC

Permalink

will start orphaning non-bit-1 blocks before Aug 1, and we avoid a

split.

Correct. There are 2 short activation periods in BIP91 either of which
would avoid a split.

unclear to me _exactly_ what it would need to implement to be consistent.

This is the relevant pull req to core:

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10444

Seems OK. It's technically running now on testnet5. I think it (or a
-bip148 option) should be merged as soon as feasible.

previously debunked "XT" and "Classic" hysteria.

apples vs oranges, imo. segwit is not a contentious feature. the
"bundling" in segwit2x is, but that's not the issue here. the issue is we
are indirectly requiring miners that strongly support segwit to install
consensus protocol changes outside of bitcoin's standard reference. 80%
of them have signaled they will do so. these are uncharted waters.

On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 6:57 PM, Jacob Eliosoff via bitcoin-dev <

I could be wrong, but the latest BIP91 implementation (also included in
Segwit2x) cuts the activation period to 336 blocks (2.33 days). (This has
been updated at https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0091.
mediawiki.) So if 80% of hashpower is actually running that code and
signaling on bit 4 by July 25 or so, then those 80+% will start orphaning
non-bit-1 blocks before Aug 1, and we avoid a split.
There may still be a few non-bit-1 blocks that get orphaned after Aug 1,
because they're mined by old BIP141 nodes. But it seems like very few
miners won't be signaling either Segwit2x *or* BIP141 by then...
Make sense?

Post by Mark Friedenbach via bitcoin-dev
Why do you say activation by August 1st is likely? That would require an
entire difficulty adjustment period with >=95% bit1 signaling. That seems a
tall order to organize in the scant few weeks remaining.
On Jun 20, 2017, at 3:29 PM, Jacob Eliosoff via bitcoin-dev <
If segwit is activated before Aug 1, as now seems likely, there will be
no split that day. But if activation is via Segwit2x (also likely), and at
least some nodes do & some don't follow through with the HF 3mo later
(again, likely), agreed w/ Greg that *then* we'll see a split - probably in
Sep/Oct. How those two chains will match up and how the split will play
out is anyone's guess...
On Jun 20, 2017 6:16 PM, "Hampus SjÃ¶berg via bitcoin-dev" <

Post by Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev
As far as prevent a chain split goes, all those things
(148/91/segwit2x(per today)) effectively guarantee a chainsplit-- so I
don't think that holds.

Segwit2x/BIP91/BIP148 will orphan miners that do not run a Segwit2x (or
BIP148) node, because they wouldn't have the new consensus rule of
requiring all blocks to signal for segwit.
I don't believe there would be any long lasting chainsplit though
(because of the ~80% hashrate support on segwit2x), perhaps 2-3 blocks if
we get unlucky.
Hampus
2017-06-20 23:49 GMT+02:00 Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev <

Post by Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev
On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 3:44 PM, Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev

Post by Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev
Because a large percentage of miners are indifferent, right now miners

have

Post by Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev
to choose between BIP148 and Segwit2x if they want to activate Segwit.

Miners can simply continuing signaling segwit, which will leave them
at least soft-fork compatible with BIP148 and BIP91 (and god knows
what "segwit2x" is since they keep changing the actual definition and
do not have a specification; but last I saw the near-term behavior the
same as BIP91 but with a radically reduced activation window, so the
story would be the same there in the near term).
Ironically, it looks like most of the segwit2x signaling miners are
faking it (because they're not signaling segwit which it requires).
It'll be unfortunate if some aren't faking it and start orphaning
their own blocks because they are failing to signal segwit.
I don't think the rejection of segwit2x from Bitcoin's developers
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Segwit_support
On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 5:22 PM, Mark Friedenbach via bitcoin-dev

I think this is somewhat naive and sounds a lot like the repeat of the
previously debunked "XT" and "Classic" hysteria.
There is a reason that segwit2x is pretty much unanimously rejected by
the technical community. And just like with XT/Classic/Unlimited
you'll continue to see a strong correlation with people who are
unwilling and unable to keep updating the software at an acceptable
level of quality-- esp. because the very founding on their fork is
predicated on discarding those properties.
If miners want to go off and create an altcoin-- welp, thats something
they can always do, and nothing about that will force anyone to go
along with it.
As far as prevent a chain split goes, all those things
(148/91/segwit2x(per today)) effectively guarantee a chainsplit-- so I
don't think that holds.
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

Mark Friedenbach via bitcoin-dev

2017-06-21 02:11:15 UTC

Permalink

80% have set "NYA" in their coinbase string. We have no idea what that
means. People are equating it to BIP 91 -- but BIP 91 did not exist at
the time of the New York agreement, and differs from the actual text
of the NYA in substantive ways. The "Segwit2MB" that existed at the
time of the NYA, and which was explicitly referenced by the text is
the proposal by Sergio Demian Lerner that was made to this mailing
list on 31 March. The text of the NYA grants no authority for
upgrading this proposal while remaining compliant with the agreement.
This is without even considering the fact that in the days after the
NYA there was disagreement among those who signed it as to what it
meant.

I feel it is a very dangerous and unwarranted assumption people are
making that what we are seeing now is either 80% support for BIP-91 or
for the code in the btc1 repo.