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.

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

Newsletters: add 80 (2019-01-13) #314

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Jan 15, 2020

Conversation

harding
Copy link
Contributor

@harding harding commented Jan 13, 2020

No description provided.

Copy link
Contributor

@bitschmidty bitschmidty left a comment

Thanks @harding !

_posts/en/newsletters/2020-01-15-newsletter.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
_posts/en/newsletters/2020-01-15-newsletter.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
_posts/en/newsletters/2020-01-15-newsletter.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
_posts/en/newsletters/2020-01-15-newsletter.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@bitschmidty
Copy link
Contributor

@bitschmidty bitschmidty commented Jan 13, 2020

Ive looked into the failing of these checks and was able to force another netlify build which seemed to work. I suspect the next push to this branch will resolve the s

@harding harding changed the title Newsletters: add 88 (2019-01-13) Newsletters: add 80 (2019-01-13) Jan 13, 2020
@harding harding force-pushed the 2020-01-15-newsletter branch from 914a6bc to 36ab13f Compare Jan 13, 2020
@harding
Copy link
Contributor Author

@harding harding commented Jan 13, 2020

Made edits for @bitschmidty feedback (thanks!). Force pushed because I had to correct a typo in the commit message anyway.

@jnewbery jnewbery added the newsletters label Jan 13, 2020
_posts/en/newsletters/2020-01-15-newsletter.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
_posts/en/newsletters/2020-01-15-newsletter.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
_posts/en/newsletters/2020-01-15-newsletter.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
_posts/en/newsletters/2020-01-15-newsletter.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
_posts/en/newsletters/2020-01-15-newsletter.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Copy link
Collaborator

@jonatack jonatack left a comment

Excellent newsletter, @harding. I verified the links at the bottom. A few minor comments below to pick/choose or ignore.


4. The prevention, as much as possible, of the creation of blocks
that are invalid under the new rules, which could lead to false
confirmations in unupgraded nodes and SPV clients
Copy link
Collaborator

@jonatack jonatack Jan 14, 2020

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

perhaps s/unupgraded/non-upgraded/

confirmations in unupgraded nodes and SPV clients

5. The assurance that the abort mechanisms can't be misused by
griefers or partisans to withhold a widely-desired upgrade with
Copy link
Collaborator

@jonatack jonatack Jan 14, 2020

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

no need for hyphen

Corallo believes that a well-crafted soft fork using the [BIP9][]
versionbits activation mechanism and surrounded with good community
engagement fulfills the first four criteria---but not the fifth.
Alternatively, a [BIP8][] flag-day soft fork fulfills the fith
Copy link
Collaborator

@jonatack jonatack Jan 14, 2020

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

s/fith/fifth/


As an alternative to either BIP9 or BIP8 alone, Corallo proposes
a three-step process: use BIP9 to allow a proposal to be
activated within a one-year window; pause for a six month discussion
Copy link
Collaborator

@jonatack jonatack Jan 14, 2020

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Nit: I'm not sure whether one-year, six-month and 42-month should be hyphened as used here (leaning toward yes), but perhaps they should be used consistently.

activation possible using versionbits signaling). Node software can
prepare for this maximum 42 month process by including, even in its
initial versions, a configuration option users can manually enable
to enforce the BIP8 flag day if necessary. If the first 18 months of
Copy link
Collaborator

@jonatack jonatack Jan 14, 2020

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Two uses of "flag-day" above followed by "flag day" here and again a little further down

Copy link
Contributor Author

@harding harding Jan 14, 2020

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Good catch. One of the uses is "flag-day soft fork". I'm leaving the hyphen there and removing it in the other non-modifier usecases. Thanks!

using a BIP8 flag-day set to two years in the future (with faster
activation possible using versionbits signaling). Node software can
prepare for this maximum 42 month process by including, even in its
initial versions, a configuration option users can manually enable
Copy link
Collaborator

@jonatack jonatack Jan 14, 2020

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

maybe s/option users/option that users/ for clarity


- [Bitcoin Core #17578][] updates the `getaddressinfo` RPC to return an
array of strings corresponding to the labels used by an address.
Previously, it returned an array of objects where each label contained
Copy link
Collaborator

@jonatack jonatack Jan 14, 2020

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks for mentioning this PR :D 🍰... might be too deep into the weeds to mention, but only one label can be associated with an address, so perhaps s/labels used/label used/. May propose multiple labels soon.

P2PKH, P2WPKH, P2SH-P2WPKH)---could be associated with each other on
the block chain even though the `avoid_reuse` behavior is supposed to
prevent this type of linkability. This merged PR fixes the problem for the
`avoid_reuse` flag and the ongoing adoption of [output script
Copy link
Collaborator

@jonatack jonatack Jan 14, 2020

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

nit: s/flag/flag,/ (or make two sentences) for clarity

Copy link
Collaborator

@jonatack jonatack Jan 14, 2020

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

perhaps worth mentioning that this PR is being backported in bitcoin/bitcoin#17792 for release in 0.19.1

- **Discussion of soft fork activation mechanisms:** Matt Corallo
started a [discussion][corallo sf] on the Bitcoin-Dev mailing list about
what attributes are desirable in a soft fork activation method and
submitted a proposal for a mechanism that contains those attributes.
Copy link
Collaborator

@jonatack jonatack Jan 14, 2020

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

FWIW I followed this ML exchange with interest, but wondered what the context was for launching the discussion. Was there an event, a trigger, something in particular? If yes, I think it would be interesting to mention it.

Copy link
Contributor Author

@harding harding Jan 14, 2020

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

There was a bit of discussion about what upgrade mechanism to use for taproot a few weeks ago; this didn't involve Matt (although he was mentioned): http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/taproot-bip-review/2019/taproot-bip-review.2019-12-17-19.01.log.html#l-56

But I don't know for sure whether that had anything to do with Matt's post, so I hesitate to link to it.

Copy link
Collaborator

@jonatack jonatack Jan 14, 2020

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks @harding. I agree that it's too tenuous to link to it.

@jnewbery
Copy link
Contributor

@jnewbery jnewbery commented Jan 14, 2020

ACK 182cbab. I've marked all resolved comments as resolved

@jonatack
Copy link
Collaborator

@jonatack jonatack commented Jan 14, 2020

ACK be6749e edits

@adamjonas
Copy link
Member

@adamjonas adamjonas commented Jan 14, 2020

ACK be6749e

@bitschmidty bitschmidty merged commit ebec833 into bitcoinops:master Jan 15, 2020
2 checks passed
@bitschmidty
Copy link
Contributor

@bitschmidty bitschmidty commented Jan 15, 2020

ACK be6749e

Squashed and merged

100th bitdevs happened in New York
Matt Corallo talking the soft fork

Changes in #16373
To bumpfee, RPC
For Replace-by-Fee
Returns a PSBT
When disabled private key
Use a floppy
To your wallet copy

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
newsletters
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

5 participants