Re: [bitcoin-dev] Miners forced to run non-core code in order to get segwit activated

There's a pull req to core already for part of it: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10444 On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 12:31 PM, Jorge Timón via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > First the implementation, then the technical design (BIP)... will the > analysis

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Miners forced to run non-core code in order to get segwit activated

First the implementation, then the technical design (BIP)... will the analysis come after that? Will there be any kind of simulations of tje proposed size or will thag come only after activation on mainnet? I assume the very last step will be activation on testnet 3 ? On 27 Jun 2017 8:44 am,

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Miners forced to run non-core code in order to get segwit activated

Currently the only implementation that fulfills the requirements of the NYA agreement is the segwit2x/btc1 implementation, which is being finalized this week. Segwit2mb does not fulfill the NYA agreement. I'm asking now the segwit2x development team when a BIP will be ready so that Core has the

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Miners forced to run non-core code in order to get segwit activated

Well, this Saturday's "Chinese roundtable" statement from a bunch of miners (https://pastebin.com/b3St9VCF) says they intend "NYA" in the coinbase as support for "the New York consensus SegWit2x program btc1 ( https://github.com/btc1)", whose code includes the (accelerated 336-block) BIP 91

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Miners forced to run non-core code in order to get segwit activated

80% have set "NYA" in their coinbase string. We have no idea what that means. People are equating it to BIP 91 -- but BIP 91 did not exist at the time of the New York agreement, and differs from the actual text of the NYA in substantive ways. The "Segwit2MB" that existed at the time of the NYA,

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Miners forced to run non-core code in order to get segwit activated

# Jacob Eliosoff: > will start orphaning non-bit-1 blocks before Aug 1, and we avoid a split. Correct. There are 2 short activation periods in BIP91 either of which would avoid a split. # Gregory Maxwell: > unclear to me _exactly_ what it would need to implement to be consistent. This is

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Miners forced to run non-core code in order to get segwit activated

(That is: "...because they're mined by old non-Segwit2x nodes that *aren't signaling bit 1 support*", ie, that support neither Segwit2x nor old segwit) On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 6:57 PM, Jacob Eliosoff wrote: > I could be wrong, but the latest BIP91 implementation (also

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Miners forced to run non-core code in order to get segwit activated

I could be wrong, but the latest BIP91 implementation (also included in Segwit2x) cuts the activation period to 336 blocks (2.33 days). (This has been updated at https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0091.mediawiki.) So if 80% of hashpower is actually running that code and signaling on

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Miners forced to run non-core code in order to get segwit activated

Why do you say activation by August 1st is likely? That would require an entire difficulty adjustment period with >=95% bit1 signaling. That seems a tall order to organize in the scant few weeks remaining. > On Jun 20, 2017, at 3:29 PM, Jacob Eliosoff via bitcoin-dev >

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Miners forced to run non-core code in order to get segwit activated

If segwit is activated before Aug 1, as now seems likely, there will be no split that day. But if activation is via Segwit2x (also likely), and at least some nodes do & some don't follow through with the HF 3mo later (again, likely), agreed w/ Greg that *then* we'll see a split - probably in

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Miners forced to run non-core code in order to get segwit activated

> Ironically, it looks like most of the segwit2x signaling miners are > faking it (because they're not signaling segwit which it requires). > It'll be unfortunate if some aren't faking it and start orphaning > their own blocks because they are failing to signal segwit. Well, they're doing some

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Miners forced to run non-core code in order to get segwit activated

On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 3:44 PM, Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev wrote: > Because a large percentage of miners are indifferent, right now miners have > to choose between BIP148 and Segwit2x if they want to activate Segwit. Miners can simply continuing

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Miners forced to run non-core code in order to get segwit activated

I think it is very naïve to assume that any shift would be temporary. We have a hard enough time getting miners to proactively upgrade to recent versions of the reference bitcoin daemon. If miners interpret the situation as being forced to run non-reference software in order to prevent a chain

Re: [bitcoin-dev] Miners forced to run non-core code in order to get segwit activated

I don't think it's a huge deal if the miners need to run a non-Core node once the BIP91 deployment of Segwit2x happens. The shift will most likely be temporary. I agree that the "-bip148"-option should be merged, though. 2017-06-20 17:44 GMT+02:00 Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev <

[bitcoin-dev] Miners forced to run non-core code in order to get segwit activated

Are we going to merge BIP91 or a -BIP148 option to core for inclusion in the next release or so? Because a large percentage of miners are indifferent, right now miners have to choose between BIP148 and Segwit2x if they want to activate Segwit. Should we be forcing miners to choose to run