CalvinRechner [ARCHIVE] / is on Nostr

⚠️ This account is not associated with a real person. It's an archival account for mailing list messages.
🗓️ Active from 2017-05-29 to 2017-05-30
💬 Posted a total of 2 messages
📚 Participated in the following categories: bitcoin-dev
🔇 Please do not DM this user as it's used for archive purposes only.

Last Notes

2023-06-07 20:02:00

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2017-05-30
📝 Original message:In principle, there is complete flexibility when it comes to the specific consensus details of the hard fork. One common suggestion has been to phase in a gradual blocksize increase beyond the initial 2MB cap included in Luke-Jr's proposal (a la BIP103); this would certainly be a welcome inclusion in the Omnibus Proposal, provided that is what we want. The reasoning behind incorporating Luke-Jr's 2MB limit and discount-rebalancing was to satisfy the conditions of the Scaling Agreement while ensuring maximum safety, minimum code discrepancies, and minimum controversy among the community; these priorities seem imperative, considering the extreme timeline constraints we are working under and the goals of the proposal. To put it more simply, the intent of the proposal was to serve as a template for the minimum viable fork that can achieve true consensus. A gradual increase to a larger size cap, especially if it were reasonably conservative, would be wholly in accordance with the Omnibus Proposal if that is what it takes to achieve the cooperation between community, industry, and developers in this critical moment of Bitcoin's history.
The purpose of the Omnibus Proposal is singlefold: to achieve the goals of the Consensus 2017 Scaling Agreement in the most maximally-compatible way. We can minimize disruption and loss potential all around by solving these problems in a compatibility-oriented manner. It is possible to fulfill both the letter and the spirit of the Scaling Agreement, to the complete satisfaction of all involved, while preventing chain-split risks in the meantime.
There is no justification for incompatibility with existing deployment approaches, when there is the possibility to work together towards our mutual goals instead. The most rational option is to join forces and avoid any chain-split potential for as long as possible. Under the Omnibus Proposal, once SegWit is activated, the terms of the hard fork are locked in automatically, set to activate 6 months later. The proposal guarantees that a successful SegWit activation is followed by a hard fork. Beyond enforcing the hard fork rules beginning at block height HardForkHeight, the Omnibus Proposal simply represents compatibility with the existing SegWit-activation deployment approaches.
By committing to this proposal, we can ensure unity, at least for now. There do not appear to be any arguments to the contrary. Why squander this opportunity for consensus and harmony? We can leverage the momentum of several disparate movements, and perhaps enjoy some much-needed social solidarity. In a way, everyone can get what they want, and through cooperation, we avoid the risk of a costly fracture.
The Segwit2x Team has begun work on an implementation of the Consensus Scaling Agreement, their operational timeline including the publication of a BIP on June 16, 2017.[1] I call upon the developers and maintainers of this initiative to consider and honor the Omnibus Proposal, extended or modified as needed, as the guiding approach to your development effort. Almost every component of the code exists, in some form or fashion, in the various constituent proposals' reference implementations, most of which have already undergone a significant degree of peer review.
We cannot afford to delay, nor to reimplement; the launch timeline is aggressively optimistic as it is. The quickest and safest approach to achieving the goals set forth at Consensus 2017 is to leverage the existing tools and proposals for the job. We can solve our problems properly, cooperatively.
I humbly ask that Jeff Garzik, Barry Silbert, Mike Belshe, and all of the other wonderful, intelligent collaborators on this project step forward and support the cooperative, compatibility-oriented approach of the Omnibus Proposal.
This is the best way to maximize value for everyone. We have a real opportunity to collaborate and work together on the same team. The Omnibus Proposal, designed in exact accordance with a powerful industry agreement and incorporating the feedback and suggestions provided from within both the developer community and the community-at-large, stands the best chance of uniting everyone under a common front.
Please, for the love of Bitcoin, let us do our best to cooperate.
[1] https://imgur.com/a/a2oPs
Sent with [ProtonMail](https://protonmail.com) Secure Email.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Compatibility-Oriented Omnibus Proposal
Local Time: May 29, 2017 6:49 PM
UTC Time: May 29, 2017 11:49 PM
From: opetruzel at gmail.com
To: CalvinRechner <calvinrechner at protonmail.com>
Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>
>>if the community wishes to adopt (by unanimous consensus) a 2 MB block size hardfork, this is probably the best way to do it right now... Legacy Bitcoin transactions are given the witness discount, and a block size limit of 2 MB is imposed.<<
The above decision may quickly become very controversial. I don't think it's what most users had/have in mind when they discuss a "2MB+SegWit" solution.
With the current 1MB+SegWit, testing has shown us that normal usage results in ~2 or 2.1MB blocks.
I think most users will expect a linear increase when Base Size is increased to 2000000 bytes and Total Weight is increased to 8000000 bytes. With normal usage, the expected results would then be ~4 or 4.2MB blocks.
Am I missing something here, or does Luke's suggested 2MB cap completely nullify that expected linear increase? If so, why? What's the logic behind this decision?
I'd love to be armed with a good answer should my colleagues ask me the same obvious question, so thank you ahead of time!
Respectfully,
Oliver Petruzel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20170530/8b73d5b3/attachment-0001.html>

2023-06-07 20:01:57

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2017-05-28
📝 Original message:This proposal is written under the assumption that the signatories to the Consensus 2017 Scaling Agreement[1] are genuinely committed to the terms of the agreement, and intend to enact the updates described therein. As such, criticisms pertaining to the chosen deployment timeline or hard fork upgrade path should be treated as out-of-scope during the initial discussion of this proposal.
Because it includes the activation of a hard fork for which community consensus does not yet exist, this proposal is not likely to be merged into Bitcoin Core in the immediate future, and must instead be maintained and reviewed in a separate downstream repository. However, it is written with the intent to remain cleanly compatible with future network updates and changes, to allow for the option of a straightforward upstream merge if community consensus for the proposal is successfully achieved in the following months.
<pre>
BIP: ?
Layer: Consensus
Title: Compatibility-oriented omnibus proposal
Author: Calvin Rechner <calvinrechner at protonmail.com>
Comments-Summary: No comments yet.
Comments-URI: ?
Status: Draft
Type: Standards Track
Created: 2017-05-28
License: PD
</pre>
===Abstract===
This document describes a virtuous combination of James Hilliard’s “Reduced signalling threshold activation of existing segwit deployment”[2], Shaolin Fry’s “Mandatory activation of segwit deployment”[3], Sergio Demian Lerner’s “Segwit2Mb”[4] proposal, Luke Dashjr’s “Post-segwit 2 MB block size hardfork”[5], and hard fork safety mechanisms from Johnson Lau’s “Spoonnet”[6][7] into a single omnibus proposal and patchset.
===Motivation===
The Consensus 2017 Scaling Agreement[1] stipulated the following commitments:
• Activate Segregated Witness at an 80% threshold, signaling at bit 4
• Activate a 2 MB hard fork within six months
This proposal seeks to fulfill these criteria while retaining maximum compatibility with existing deployment approaches, thereby minimizing the risks of a destructive chain split. Additionally, subsequent indications of implied criteria and expectations of the Agreement[8][9] are satisfied.
The proposed hard fork incorporates a legacy witness discount and 2MB blocksize limit along with the enactment of Spoonnet-derived protectionary measures, to ensure the safest possible fork activation within the constraints of the requirements outlined in the Scaling Agreement.
===Rationale===
To the extent possible, this represents an effort at a best-of-all-worlds proposal, intended to provide a common foundation from which all mutually-inclusive goals can be achieved while risks are minimized.
The individual constituent proposals include the following respective rationales:
James Hilliard’s “Reduced signalling threshold activation of existing segwit deployment”[2] explains:
> The goal here is to minimize chain split risk and network disruption while maximizing backwards compatibility and still providing for rapid activation of segwit at the 80% threshold using bit 4.
Shaolin Fry’s “Mandatory activation of segwit deployment”[3] is included to:
> cause the existing "segwit" deployment to activate without needing to release a new deployment.
Both of the aforementioned activation options (“fast-activation” and “flag-day activation”) serve to prevent unnecessary delays in the network upgrade process, addressing a common criticism of the Scaling Agreement and providing an opportunity for cooperation and unity instead.
Sergio Demian Lerner’s “Segwit2Mb”[4] proposal explains the reasoning behind linking SegWit’s activation with that of a later hard fork block size increase:
> Segwit2Mb combines segwit as it is today in Bitcoin 0.14+ with a 2MB block size hard-fork activated ONLY if segwit activates (95% of miners signaling ... to re-unite the Bitcoin community and avoid a cryptocurrency split.
Luke Dashjr’s “Post-segwit 2 MB block size hardfork”[5] suggestions are included to reduce the marginal risks that such an increase in the block size might introduce:
> if the community wishes to adopt (by unanimous consensus) a 2 MB block size hardfork, this is probably the best way to do it right now... Legacy Bitcoin transactions are given the witness discount, and a block size limit of 2 MB is imposed.
Johnson Lau’s anti-replay and network version updates[6][7] are included as general hard fork safety measures:
> In a blockchain split, however, since both forks share the same historical ledger, replay attack would be possible, unless some precautions are taken.
===Copyright===
This document is placed in the public domain.
===Specification===
###Proposal Signaling###
The string “COOP” is included anywhere in the txn-input (scriptSig) of the coinbase-txn to signal compatibility and support.
###Soft Fork###
Fast-activation (segsignal): deployed by a "version bits" with an 80% activation threshold BIP9 with the name "segsignal" and using bit 4... [with a] start time of midnight June 1st, 2017 (epoch time 1496275200) and timeout on midnight November 15th 2017 (epoch time 1510704000). This BIP will cease to be active when segwit is locked-in.[2]
Flag-day activation (BIP148): While this BIP is active, all blocks must set the nVersion header top 3 bits to 001 together with bit field (1<<1) (according to the existing segwit deployment). Blocks that do not signal as required will be rejected... This BIP will be active between midnight August 1st 2017 (epoch time 1501545600) and midnight November 15th 2017 (epoch time 1510704000) if the existing segwit deployment is not locked-in or activated before epoch time 1501545600. This BIP will cease to be active when segwit is locked-in. While this BIP is active, all blocks must set the nVersion header top 3 bits to 001 together with bit field (1<<1) (according to the existing segwit deployment). Blocks that do not signal as required will be rejected.[3]
###Hard Fork###
The hard fork deployment is scheduled to occur 6 months after SegWit activates:
(HardForkHeight = SEGWIT_ACTIVE_BLOCK_HEIGHT + 26280)
For blocks equal to or higher than HardForkHeight, Luke-Jr’s legacy witness discount and 2MB limit are enacted, along with the following Spoonnet-based improvements[6][7]:
* A "hardfork signalling block" is a block with the sign bit of header nVersion is set [Clearly invalid for old nodes; easy opt-out for light wallets]
* If the median-time-past of the past 11 blocks is smaller than the HardForkHeight... a hardfork signalling block is invalid.
* Child of a hardfork signalling block MUST also be a hardfork signalling block
* Hardfork network version bit is 0x02000000. A tx is invalid if the highest nVersion byte is not zero, and the network version bit is not set.
===Deployment===
Deployment of the “fast-activation” soft fork is exactly identical to Hilliard’s segsignal proposal[2]. Deployment of the “flag-day” soft fork is exactly identical to Fry’s BIP148 proposal[3]. HardForkHeight is defined as 26280 blocks after SegWit is set to ACTIVE. All blocks with height greater than or equal to this value must adhere to the consensus rules of the 2MB hard fork.
===Backwards compatibility===
This deployment is compatible with the existing "segwit" bit 1 deployment scheduled between midnight November 15th, 2016 and midnight November 15th, 2017.
To prevent the risk of building on top of invalid blocks, miners should upgrade their nodes to support segsignal as well as BIP148.
The intent of this proposal is to maintain full legacy consensus compatibility for users up until the HardForkHeight block height, after which backwards compatibility is waived as enforcement of the hard fork consensus ruleset begins.
===References===
[1] https://medium.com/@DCGco/bitcoin-scaling-agreement-at-consensus-2017-133521fe9a77
[2] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-May/014380.html
[3] https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0148.mediawiki
[4] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-March/013921.html
[5] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-May/014399.html
[6] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-February/013542.html
[7] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-January/013473.html
[8] https://twitter.com/sysmannet/status/867124645279006720
[9] https://twitter.com/JihanWu/status/867139046786465792
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20170528/7696e13f/attachment-0001.html>