Yes, in fact, you don't need to lose those bits like bitcoin by imposing that the version is greater than that. But I guess just doing the same is simpler.
On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 7:14 AM, Samad Sajanlal <samad.sajan...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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