BIP 148: Mandatory activation of segwit deployment#501
BIP 148: Mandatory activation of segwit deployment#501luke-jr merged 1 commit intobitcoin:masterfrom shaolinfry:bip-segwit-flagday
Conversation
|
Compulsory activation ? wtf ? |
|
An effort to provide a PoW contingency plan is also being started, to provide back up for any eventuality in this transition. |
|
What might be smart to add is some kind of depth at which blocks are accepted. Maybe also make it configurable. I really like the idea of consensus emerging from the network itself. It's like decentralised consensus finding. |
I see what you did there. |
|
Why did you choose between October 1st 2017 and November 15th 2017? |
|
This is just a hardfork, while you're at it, put in a block size increase there too |
|
@AayanL segwit already has it |
|
I left a clarifying question on the original proposal here: https://gist.github.com/shaolinfry/743157b0b1ee14e1ddc95031f1057e4c#gistcomment-2028169 No answer between when I left it four days ago and when this was submitted as a PR today. The rationale for the choice of a 2-DoS score is still unclear in the proposal. |
luke-jr
left a comment
luke-jr
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Please use BIP number 148, and correct the Copyright section.
bip-segwit-flagday.mediawiki
Outdated
|
|
||
| ==Copyright== | ||
|
|
||
| This document is placed in the public domain. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This doesn't match the header (and PD is not an acceptable "license" anymore).
luke-jr
changed the title
|
As a reminder to commenters here: discussion of the actual proposal should occur on the bitcoin-dev mailing list, not on the pull request, which will be merged/closed as soon as the process issues are resolved, and without any consideration for the merits of or flaws in the idea. |
No, this is not a hardfork, old legacy nodes will still follow the UASF/softfork chain, should it become the one with most hashing power. In a hardfork, old nodes would never accept the hardfork chain.
I think this it so make sure that 0.13.1 and 0.14 nodes would get triggered by the UASF, because that means that it would be 1 month of 100% segwit blocks, triggering the old 95% signaling requirement. Perhaps requiring ~51% miners support would make the proposal safer? |
|
@farukuzun Please see the mailing list discussion @NTOM P2SH was activated by flag day also, see 0.6.0 release @pdaian DOS score will be up for discussion on final PR as well as potentially using a service bit until Nov 15th. Removed for now. @luke-jr Done. Unsure why Travis is failing. |
|
@luke-jr OK Travis errors fixed. |
|
This is exactly what we need. It shows we at Blockstream own Bitcoin and if you don't align with our vision, you will be crushed like cockroaches. I wonder how many percentage points off of the original 95% we'll be at when this activates and hard forks those nodes and miners off the network. |
|
|
||
| ==Copyright== | ||
|
|
||
| This document dual licensed as BSD-3-Clause and CC0-1.0. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
BSD 3-Clause and CC0 1.0: without dashes.
Add hyperlinks to authoritative license deeds.
This document is
|
No miner is going to run code that will put him on a minority chain. I hope blockstream does this real soon cause it will bury blockstream/core forever. |
|
Concept ACK. Better to trigger activation for the >80% of nodes prepared to enforce the rule already. |
14 participants
No description provided.