Discussion:
BIP149 timeout-- why so far in the future?
(too old to reply)
Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev
2017-05-23 17:50:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Based on how fast we saw segwit adoption, why is the BIP149 timeout so
far in the future?

It seems to me that it could be six months after release and hit the
kind of density required to make a stable transition.

(If it were a different proposal and not segwit where we already have
seen what network penetration looks like-- that would be another
matter.)
Matt Corallo via bitcoin-dev
2017-05-26 20:04:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
A more important consideration than segwit's timeout is when code can be
released, which will no doubt be several months after SegWit's current
timeout.

Greg's proposed 6 months seems much more reasonable to me, assuming its
still many months after the formal release of code implementing it.

Matt
Post by Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev
Based on how fast we saw segwit adoption, why is the BIP149 timeout so
far in the future?
It seems to me that it could be six months after release and hit the
kind of density required to make a stable transition.
Agreed, I would suggest 16th December, 2017 (otherwise, it should be
16th January 2018; during EOY holidays seems a bad idea).
This means this whole debacle has delayed segwit exactly 1 (2) month(s)
beyond what we'd have if it used BIP8 in the first place.
Cheers,
Rusty.
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
Rusty Russell via bitcoin-dev
2017-05-27 01:19:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Matt Corallo via bitcoin-dev
A more important consideration than segwit's timeout is when code can be
released, which will no doubt be several months after SegWit's current
timeout.
I was assuming it would be included in the next point release.

Cheers,
Rusty.
Ryan Grant via bitcoin-dev
2017-06-11 05:48:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Is there any reason that BIP149 activation on November 16th would
cause a problem?
Jorge Timón via bitcoin-dev
2017-06-11 13:17:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
The current proposal assumes that bip149 would only be merged and
released after nov15, so there's not time in one day.

My preference would be a bip149 proposal that could be merged and
released now, but some people complain that would require more
testing, because if you deploy bip149 and then sw gets activated pre
nov15, then you want bip149 nodes to use the old service bit for
segwit, not the new one (you would use that one if it activates post
nov15, so that pre-bip149 nodes don't get confused).

I was slowly modifying shaolinfry's code to try to code that, but I'm
currently not working on it because there doesn't seem there's a lot
of interest in releasing bip149 before nov15...

https://github.com/jtimon/bitcoin/commits/b15-shaolinfry-bip149


On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 7:48 AM, Ryan Grant via bitcoin-dev
Post by Ryan Grant via bitcoin-dev
Is there any reason that BIP149 activation on November 16th would
cause a problem?
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
Martijn Meijering via bitcoin-dev
2017-06-11 13:44:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Jorge Timón wrote:

"My preference would be a bip149 proposal that could be merged and
released now, but some people complain that would require more
testing, because *if you deploy bip149 and then sw gets activated pre
nov15, then you want bip149 nodes to use the old service bit for
segwit*, not the new one (you would use that one if it activates post
nov15, so that pre-bip149 nodes don't get confused)."
(emphasis added)

Why not just make sure BIP 149 will never activate unless BIP 141 has
expired unsuccessfully? If BIP 141 should unexpectly activate, then
BIP 149 nodes would notice and act as pre-SegWit nodes indefinitely,
but remain in consensus with BIP 141 nodes.

It might be slightly less convenient for BIP 149 users to upgrade
again, but then at least we could start deploying BIP 149 sooner.
Jorge Timón via bitcoin-dev
2017-06-11 14:29:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 3:44 PM, Martijn Meijering via bitcoin-dev
Post by Martijn Meijering via bitcoin-dev
Why not just make sure BIP 149 will never activate unless BIP 141 has
expired unsuccessfully?
Right, that would be part of it, as well as not removing the BIP141
deployment with bip9.
See https://github.com/jtimon/bitcoin/commit/62efd741740f5c75c43d78358d6318941e6d3c04
Post by Martijn Meijering via bitcoin-dev
If BIP 141 should unexpectly activate, then
BIP 149 nodes would notice and act as pre-SegWit nodes indefinitely,
but remain in consensus with BIP 141 nodes.
It might be slightly less convenient for BIP 149 users to upgrade
again, but then at least we could start deploying BIP 149 sooner.
No, if segwit activates pre nov15, bip149 nodse can detect and
interpret that just fine.
The problem if it activates post nov15, then you need a separate
service bit in the p2p network, for pre-BIP149 will think sw hasn't
activated while post-BIP149 would know it has activated.

If you release it only after nov15, you don't need to test
compatibility between the two for neither of this two cases.
Or do you? Actually you only save testing the easier case of pre-nov15
activation.
Post by Martijn Meijering via bitcoin-dev
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
Loading...