Excellent - Thanks for your response Jorge. This helps us plan out the future upgrades properly. Since I see 0.15 and 0.16 use block versions as 0x20000000, whereas the current deployed codebase (based on bitcoin 0.9.4) makes versions 0x00000002 (as seen by a 0.15 client), it appears safe to activate soft forks which require a minimum of version 3 and 4 blocks (0x00000003 and 0x00000004, respectively). Would you agree?
On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 7:55 AM, Jorge Timón <jti...@jtimon.cc> wrote: > Yes, you can activate softforks at a given height. > I don't see any reason why you couldn't rebase to 0.16 directly. > The block version bumping was a mistake in bip34, you don't really > need to bump the version number. In any case, I would recommend > reading bip34 and what it activates in the code. IIRC the last thing > was bip65. > > On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 11:04 PM, Samad Sajanlal via bitcoin-dev > <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > Is it possible to activate soft forks such as BIP65 and BIP66 without > prior > > signaling from miners? I noticed in chainparams.cpp that there are block > > heights where the enforcement begins. > > > > I understand this is already active on bitcoin. I'm working on a project > > that is a clone of a clone of bitcoin, and we currently do not have > BIP65 or > > BIP66 enforced - no signaling of these soft forks either (most of the > > network is on a source code fork of bitcoin 0.9). This project does not > and > > never intends to attempt to replace bitcoin - we know that without > bitcoin > > our project could never exist, so we owe a great deal of gratitude to the > > bitcoin developers. > > > > If the entire network upgrades to the correct version of the software > (based > > on bitcoin 0.15), which includes the block height that has enforcement, > can > > we simply skip over the signaling and go straight into > > activation/enforcement? > > > > At this time we are lucky that our network is very small, so it is > > reasonable to assume that the whole network will upgrade their clients > > within a short window (~2 weeks). We would schedule the activation ~2 > months > > out from when the client is released, just to ensure everyone has time to > > upgrade. > > > > We have been stuck on the 0.9 code branch and my goal is to bring it up > to > > 0.15 at least, so that we can implement Segwit and other key features > that > > bitcoin has introduced. The 0.15 client currently works with regards to > > sending and receiving transactions but the soft forks are not active. I > > understand that activating them will segregate the 0.15 clients onto > their > > own fork, which is why I'd like to understand the repercussions of doing > it > > without any signaling beforehand. I also would prefer not to have to make > > intermediate releases such as 0.10, 0.11.. etc to get the soft forks > > activated. > > > > Another related question - does the block version get bumped up > > automatically at the time that a soft fork activates, or is there > additional > > stuff that I need to do within the code to ensure it bumps up at the same > > time? From what I saw in the code it appears that it will bump up > > automatically, but I would like some confirmation on that. > > > > Regards, > > Samad > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > bitcoin-dev mailing list > > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > > >
_______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
