Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Make Bitcoin Core compatible with NYA segwit2x #11128

Closed
wants to merge 23 commits into from
Closed

Make Bitcoin Core compatible with NYA segwit2x #11128

wants to merge 23 commits into from

Conversation

hovah
Copy link

@hovah hovah commented Aug 24, 2017

No description provided.

jgarzik and others added 23 commits August 11, 2017 21:08
@jgarzik @hovah
[consensus] Hard limit on transaction size / decouple from block size…
613fc0f 
… limit

Establish a fixed upper limit on serialized transactions, compatible
with existing software.

Decouple transaction size limit from block size limit, by avoiding
derivation of tx limit from block limit.
@jgarzik @hovah
bitcoin-tx: Decouple max-tx-size from max-block-size
d768393 
Calculate limits based on tx size limits, not block size limits.
@hovah
Addition of testnet5.
b7dac7d
@gavinandresen @hovah
[qa] p2p-compactblocks, p2p-segwit: update for segwit2x
503430e
@jgarzik @hovah
chainparams: segwit2x deployment on testnet, regtest
394e65c
@jgarzik @hovah
[consensus] Decouple max-tx-per-block from max-block-size
788d435
@jgarzik @hovah
[consensus] Forward port BIP102 - 2M block size increase
6414c3a
@jgarzik @hovah
consensus/consensus.h: unify fork trigger code
b515484
@jgarzik @hovah
[consensus] Add 3-month minimum seasoning requirement for SegWit
7a78b05 
before changing base block size.
@jgarzik @hovah
[consensus] Scale block weight based on base block size
63231d0
@nitsujlangston @hovah
Cleaning up duplicate testnet segwit2x deployment block
25fbb4a
@chjj @hovah
net: increase max net msg size to 8mb.
0f76866
@chjj @hovah
validation: correctly pass fSegwitSeasoned to calls in ConnectBlock().
16cafe5 
The way `fSegwitSeasoned` is currently passed to `MaxBlockSigopsCost` in
`ConnectBlock` is inconsistent from any other calls, and creates an odd
situation where sigop limits may increase before blocksize limits.

This commit correctly passes in the segwit activation status within
the window of the fork buffer.
@jgarzik @hovah
[consensus] Remove flag day activation
78f1019 
SegWit+3m remains as the HF trigger.
@jgarzik @hovah
[mining] Several segwit2x seasoning differential related fixes.
2c32a28 
Fixes btc1#28
@jgarzik @hovah
consensus.h: MAX_BLOCK_VTX warning cleanup
2e7097a
@jgarzik @hovah
chainparams: Add segwit2x DNS seeds
7518274
@jgarzik @hovah
init.cpp: add "2x" to uacomment string, for segwit2x
beaa105
@hovah
Split hard fork test after segwit activation
17a6d4a
@jgarzik @hovah
Advertise NODE_SEGWIT2X service flag by default.
3a33510
@jgarzik @hovah
segwit2x node preferential peering policy
7ecb554 
1) Advertise node_segwit2x
2) Prefer to peer with segwit2x and, for now, segwit nodes
3) Option to disable pref peering
@hovah
Revert disconnection of service bit (1 « 7)
41398fe
@hovah
fix gitian name. No rebrand
a1f6c0f
@TheBlueMatt
Copy link
Contributor

https://bitcoincore.org/en/2017/08/18/btc1-misleading-statements/

@jonasschnelli
Copy link
Contributor

Strong concept NACK.

@molxyz
Copy link

molxyz commented Aug 24, 2017

NACK

@alp-bitcoin
Copy link

Nack, consensus level changes require consensus from the ecosystem. SegWit2X is clearly contentious.

@sipa sipa closed this Aug 24, 2017
@jaredfranka
Copy link

NACK
OWND

@ReneFroger
Copy link

ReneFroger commented Aug 28, 2017 •
edited
Loading

Sorry for my poor English. But there is no consensus with all Core developers about unncessary blocksize increment. What's next?16 MB blocksize increase? Then we will reach full blocks again with only small part of population.
Then 32 MB? And then 1GB? 100GB?
There is not enough room to serve the whole world. You need to think different about viable solutions.

I don't want other to control my own belongings. And that's why I use Bitcoin.With eternally blocksize increases, Bitcoin could in theory process transactions on big scale as Paypal and VISA, but it's will not be different anymore from another big payment systems, only big companies could be able afford to run the infrastructure for Bitcoin payment system. Not me and not everyone.
Didn't you even wondered why Bitcoin is so extraordinary?
The decentralized nature of Bitcoin for everyone is the core value of Bitcoin. It's what makes different from other payment systems.
Like me, Bitcoin is for the Joe the Average who want to control his own money.
Not the money system as big enterprises wished to be. You need to think in the long term about solutions to keep Bitcoin decentralized, that is what really counts in the long term. Not the 'dumb' solutions, or we will eventually end up with the basically same payment systems running by big companies.

@hsjoberg
Copy link
Contributor

hsjoberg commented Aug 28, 2017 •
edited
Loading

Concept NACK.
SegWit2x, being a hardfork, needs strong consensus across the ecosystem, I don't see this being the case.

I also think we should evaluate how the network reacts to ~2MB+ blocks enabled by SegWit, before making any further decisions on a blocksize increase.

@errge
Copy link

errge commented Aug 29, 2017

NACK, LOL :)

@nomnombtc
Copy link
Contributor

Sad to see that this PR was closed instantly on the same day... Why not let users opt-in to 2x.

What are bitcoin-core's plans if 90% of the hashrate will possibly mine btc1 blocks in november (https://coin.dance/blocks)?

@maflcko
Copy link
Member

maflcko commented Aug 30, 2017

I want to remind that the review comments on pull requests are not meant for extended off-topic discussions. Please switch to another channel and keep this discussion for review comments on the code.

Refer to the guidelines on how to write a good peer review.

@bitcoin bitcoin locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Sep 8, 2021
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Reviewers
No reviews
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.