> I think it would be useful for there to exist a useful and trivial > patch against current (0.14.2) software to engage in the BIP91-like > orphaning, like people have provided for BIP148-- but right now I > don't see any specification of the behavior so it's unclear to me > _exactly_ what it would need to implement to be consistent.
I agree. This is the latest code regarding BIP91 that got merged, https://github.com/btc1/bitcoin/pull/21/files so that should be the spec we need to follow (also the old BIP91 PR: https://github.com/btc1/bitcoin/pull/17/files). Perhaps James Hilliard could give input here though. 2017-06-21 0:34 GMT+02:00 Gregory Maxwell <g...@xiph.org>: > On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 10:15 PM, Hampus Sjöberg > <hampus.sjob...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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. > > All versions of Bitcoin Core since 0.13.1 signal segwit, 0.14.1+ even > when downstream mining software doesn't support it. > > I think it would be useful for there to exist a useful and trivial > patch against current (0.14.2) software to engage in the BIP91-like > orphaning, like people have provided for BIP148-- but right now I > don't see any specification of the behavior so it's unclear to me > _exactly_ what it would need to implement to be consistent. >
_______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
