📅 Original date posted:2017-05-28
📝 Original message:On Saturday, 27 May 2017 01:09:10 CEST James Hilliard wrote:
> > why?
>
> the main
> issue is due to 0.13.1+ having many segwit related features active
> already, including all the P2P components, the new network service
> flag, the witness-tx and block messages, compact blocks v2 and
> preferential peering.
Hmm, the flags are identical in 0.13 and 0.14 clients.
Either way, this is rather trivial to solve. If bugs in older clients mean
they can’t operate properly when SW is activated (via bit 4) but they don’t
know its activated (since they only look at bit1), then just ban them when
they misbehave.
And tell people to upgrade to a version where SegWit is less buggy.
> You would have to then have multiple activation
> codepaths to test for such as BIP141(active)->HF BIP141(inactive)->HF
> etc. By doing BIP141 first you then only have the BIP141(active)->HF
> activation codepath to test for, and you also can't be sure you can
> rely on BIP141(inactive)->HF activation codepath being the only one
> until segwit activation expires.
Heh, well, this is rather simple to solve by not having all those activation
codepaths and just picking **one**.
You can safely replace the bit1 activation code with a bit4 activation
logic, which is based on 80% and has no end-date.
We both know that the bip9 (bit1) based activation will not trigger before
the expiration date anyway.
These worries are rather trivial to solve if you do a little bit of proper
architecture of the solution. This honestly can’t be a reason for saying NO
to the majority of the mining hash power giving you a break and offering a
better SegWit activation.
--
Tom Zander
Blog: https://zander.github.io
Vlog: https://vimeo.com/channels/tomscryptochannel
Tom Zander [ARCHIVE] /
npub1mj…dxnq7
2023-06-07 20:01:25
in reply to nevent1q…r3qa
Author Public Key
npub1mju50kqcm07heu967fkq6h4kq666xgekc4yrldf7q52xx9vr8jnsrdxnq7Published at
2023-06-07 20:01:25Event JSON
{
"id": "2334a0ea47b165ce0578efb3b8db1a97dc973a7a0013668447acea571a1d7323",
"pubkey": "dcb947d818dbfd7cf0baf26c0d5eb606b5a32336c5483fb53e05146315833ca7",
"created_at": 1686160885,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"5f4e5578a00516f73144a00c0c15e1afca8ff6c2e2a719034eb27cdcba62a8d3",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"1a681b354d31f44da804fbf57b3aeb3958643db3ee797227d6638a5910ab1650",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"cd753aa8fbc112e14ffe9fe09d3630f0eff76ca68e376e004b8e77b687adddba"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2017-05-28\n📝 Original message:On Saturday, 27 May 2017 01:09:10 CEST James Hilliard wrote:\n\u003e \u003e why?\n\u003e \n\u003e the main\n\u003e issue is due to 0.13.1+ having many segwit related features active\n\u003e already, including all the P2P components, the new network service\n\u003e flag, the witness-tx and block messages, compact blocks v2 and\n\u003e preferential peering. \n\nHmm, the flags are identical in 0.13 and 0.14 clients.\n\nEither way, this is rather trivial to solve. If bugs in older clients mean \nthey can’t operate properly when SW is activated (via bit 4) but they don’t \nknow its activated (since they only look at bit1), then just ban them when \nthey misbehave.\nAnd tell people to upgrade to a version where SegWit is less buggy.\n\n\u003e You would have to then have multiple activation\n\u003e codepaths to test for such as BIP141(active)-\u003eHF BIP141(inactive)-\u003eHF\n\u003e etc. By doing BIP141 first you then only have the BIP141(active)-\u003eHF\n\u003e activation codepath to test for, and you also can't be sure you can\n\u003e rely on BIP141(inactive)-\u003eHF activation codepath being the only one\n\u003e until segwit activation expires.\n\nHeh, well, this is rather simple to solve by not having all those activation \ncodepaths and just picking **one**.\n\nYou can safely replace the bit1 activation code with a bit4 activation \nlogic, which is based on 80% and has no end-date.\nWe both know that the bip9 (bit1) based activation will not trigger before \nthe expiration date anyway.\n\nThese worries are rather trivial to solve if you do a little bit of proper \narchitecture of the solution. This honestly can’t be a reason for saying NO \nto the majority of the mining hash power giving you a break and offering a \nbetter SegWit activation.\n\n-- \nTom Zander\nBlog: https://zander.github.io\nVlog: https://vimeo.com/channels/tomscryptochannel",
"sig": "1d424e12d9eaa0146b898593f9393c1c6e3ff9ad1031b6f5dd992705b4e59020e67a6faaa7093f5e3e0e0eb6ac8358fb924fafff33628fcac06909683bfff4b5"
}