[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       bitcoin-dev
Subject:    [bitcoin-dev] A Segwit2x BIP
From:       erik () q32 ! com (Erik Aronesty)
Date:       2017-07-14 13:50:14
Message-ID: CAJowKgKQhpYNsSmdUca7Fnzk=E8op+_Fb9rTkjiM_zBHe8Wcvw () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

While BIP91 is probably not terribly harmful, because the vast majority of
nodes and users are prepared for it - the hard fork portion of this BIP is
being deployed like an emergency patch or quick bug fix to the system.

Please consider updating the BIP to include some justification for the
urgency of the consensus change, and the reasons for not delaying until a
better engineered solution (spoonet, BIP103, etc.) can be deployed.


On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 3:19 PM, Sergio Demian Lerner via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> The BIP has been updated.
> 
> Changes:
> - The technical spec has been improved: now the block size increase is
> specified in terms of weight and not in terms of bytes.
> - The increase in the maximum block sigops after HF has been documented.
> - Comments added about the worst case block size.
> 
> Happy weekend! And don't forget to start signaling something before block
> 475776 !  It's just 90 blocks away.
> Bit 1 or 4,1 or whatever you wish, but please signal something.
> 
> To the moon!
> 
> 
> On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 2:38 PM, Jorge Tim?n via bitcoin-dev <
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> 
> > 
> > 
> > On 12 Jul 2017 2:31 pm, "Tom Zander via bitcoin-dev" <
> > bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > 
> > On Monday, 10 July 2017 20:38:08 CEST Jorge Tim?n via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> > > I think anything less than 1 year after release of tested code by some
> > > implementation would be irresponsible for any hardfork, even a very
> > > simple one.
> > 
> > Good news!
> > 
> > Code to support 2x (the hard fork part of the proposal) has been out and
> > tested for much longer than that.
> > 
> > 
> > Not true. It's different code on top of segwit. The first attempt in btc1
> > (very recent) didn't even increased the size (because it changed the
> > meaningless "base size" without touching the weight limit. As for the
> > current code, I don't think it has been properly tested today, let alone
> > "for mucj longer than 1 year.
> > Anyway, I said, one year from tested release. Segwitx2 hasn't been
> > released, has it? If so, too late to discuss a bip imo, the bip may end up
> > being different from what has been released due to feedback (unless it is
> > ignored again, of course).
> > 
> > 
> > --
> > Tom Zander
> > Blog: https://zander.github.io
> > Vlog: https://vimeo.com/channels/tomscryptochannel
> > _______________________________________________
> > bitcoin-dev mailing list
> > bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > bitcoin-dev mailing list
> > bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
> > 
> > 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
> 
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20170714/d0e787a3/attachment.html>



[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]