BIP 148: Mandatory activation of segwit deployment #501

pull shaolinfry wants to merge 1 commits into bitcoin:master from shaolinfry:bip-segwit-flagday changing 2 files +81 −0

shaolinfry commented at 1:38 PM on March 19, 2017: contributor

No description provided.
Shic1983 commented at 2:34 PM on March 19, 2017: none

Compulsory activation ? wtf ?
We're not deciding or voting anything now, no signalling.. someone, somewhere is just forcing this by law ? r u kidding me ? get real. fucking ponker
is55555 commented at 2:56 PM on March 19, 2017: none

An effort to provide a PoW contingency plan is also being started, to provide back up for any eventuality in this transition.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1833391
seweso commented at 4:37 PM on March 19, 2017: none

What might be smart to add is some kind of depth at which blocks are accepted. Maybe also make it configurable. I really like the idea of consensus emerging from the network itself. It's like decentralised consensus finding.
dabura667 commented at 4:59 PM on March 19, 2017: none

What might be smart to add is some kind of depth at which blocks are accepted. Maybe also make it configurable. I really like the idea of consensus emerging from the network itself. It's like decentralised consensus finding.

I see what you did there.
farukuzun commented at 5:11 PM on March 19, 2017: none

Why did you choose between October 1st 2017 and November 15th 2017? I don't think this bip acceptable but core developers will come up with something better to prevent miners to takeover the network I hope.
WaveringAna commented at 5:15 PM on March 19, 2017: none

This is just a hardfork, while you're at it, put in a block size increase there too
farukuzun commented at 5:26 PM on March 19, 2017: none

@aayanl segwit already has it
pdaian commented at 6:07 PM on March 19, 2017: none

I left a clarifying question on the original proposal here: https://gist.github.com/shaolinfry/743157b0b1ee14e1ddc95031f1057e4c#gistcomment-2028169

No answer between when I left it four days ago and when this was submitted as a PR today.

The rationale for the choice of a 2-DoS score is still unclear in the proposal.

in bip-segwit-flagday.mediawiki:72 in e31bcd045e outdated

  67 | +*[[bip-0147.mediawiki|BIP147 Dealing with dummy stack element malleability]]
  68 | +*[https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/01/26/segwit-benefits/ Segwit benefits]
  69 | +
  70 | +==Copyright==
  71 | +
  72 | +This document is placed in the public domain.

luke-jr commented at 6:08 PM on March 19, 2017:

This doesn't match the header (and PD is not an acceptable "license" anymore).

luke-jr commented at 6:10 PM on March 19, 2017: member

Please use BIP number 148, and correct the Copyright section.
luke-jr renamed this:
~~BIP for the mandatory activation of segwit~~
BIP 148: Mandatory activation of segwit deployment
on Mar 19, 2017
luke-jr added the label New BIP on Mar 19, 2017
luke-jr commented at 6:13 PM on March 19, 2017: member

As a reminder to commenters here: discussion of the actual proposal should occur on the bitcoin-dev mailing list, not on the pull request, which will be merged/closed as soon as the process issues are resolved, and without any consideration for the merits of or flaws in the idea.
hsjoberg commented at 6:15 PM on March 19, 2017: none

This is just a hardfork, while you're at it, put in a block size increase there too

No, this is not a hardfork, old legacy nodes will still follow the UASF/softfork chain, should it become the one with most hashing power.

In a hardfork, old nodes would never accept the hardfork chain.

Why did you choose between October 1st 2017 and November 15th 2017?

I think this it so make sure that 0.13.1 and 0.14 nodes would get triggered by the UASF, because that means that it would be 1 month of 100% segwit blocks, triggering the old 95% signaling requirement.

Perhaps requiring ~51% miners support would make the proposal safer?
shaolinfry commented at 7:22 PM on March 19, 2017: contributor

@farukuzun Please see the mailing list discussion @ntom P2SH was activated by flag day also, see 0.6.0 release @pdaian DOS score will be up for discussion on final PR as well as potentially using a service bit until Nov 15th. Removed for now. @luke-jr Done. Unsure why Travis is failing.
Add bip for mandatory activation of segwit deployment ccef12cc42
shaolinfry commented at 8:31 PM on March 19, 2017: contributor

@luke-jr OK Travis errors fixed.
WriteCodeEveryday commented at 8:58 PM on March 19, 2017: none

This is exactly what we need. It shows we at Blockstream own Bitcoin and if you don't align with our vision, you will be crushed like cockroaches.

I wonder how many percentage points off of the original 95% we'll be at when this activates and hard forks those nodes and miners off the network.

in bip-0148.mediawiki:73 in ccef12cc42

  68 | +*[[bip-0147.mediawiki|BIP147 Dealing with dummy stack element malleability]]
  69 | +*[https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/01/26/segwit-benefits/ Segwit benefits]
  70 | +
  71 | +==Copyright==
  72 | +
  73 | +This document dual licensed as BSD-3-Clause and CC0-1.0.

dhimmel commented at 10:07 PM on March 19, 2017:

BSD 3-Clause and CC0 1.0: without dashes.

Add hyperlinks to authoritative license deeds.

This document is

luke-jr merged this on Mar 20, 2017
luke-jr closed this on Mar 20, 2017
AllanDoensen commented at 3:12 AM on March 20, 2017: none

No miner is going to run code that will put him on a minority chain. I hope blockstream does this real soon cause it will bury blockstream/core forever.
afk11 commented at 8:37 AM on March 20, 2017: contributor

Concept ACK. Better to trigger activation for the >80% of nodes prepared to enforce the rule already.
shaolinfry deleted the branch on Mar 20, 2017

Contributors

Labels