📅 Original date posted:2017-06-11 📝 Original message:On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at ...

Jorge Timón [ARCHIVE] /

npub1fx9…l2d8

2023-06-07 18:03:05

in reply to nevent1q…ys8r

📅 Original date posted:2017-06-11
📝 Original message:On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 3:44 PM, Martijn Meijering via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Jorge Timón wrote:
> Why not just make sure BIP 149 will never activate unless BIP 141 has
> expired unsuccessfully?

Right, that would be part of it, as well as not removing the BIP141
deployment with bip9.
See https://github.com/jtimon/bitcoin/commit/62efd741740f5c75c43d78358d6318941e6d3c04

> If BIP 141 should unexpectly activate, then
> BIP 149 nodes would notice and act as pre-SegWit nodes indefinitely,
> but remain in consensus with BIP 141 nodes.
>
> It might be slightly less convenient for BIP 149 users to upgrade
> again, but then at least we could start deploying BIP 149 sooner.

No, if segwit activates pre nov15, bip149 nodse can detect and
interpret that just fine.
The problem if it activates post nov15, then you need a separate
service bit in the p2p network, for pre-BIP149 will think sw hasn't
activated while post-BIP149 would know it has activated.

If you release it only after nov15, you don't need to test
compatibility between the two for neither of this two cases.
Or do you? Actually you only save testing the easier case of pre-nov15
activation.

> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

Author Public Key

npub1fx98zxt3lzspjs5f4msr0fxysx5euucm29ghysryju7vpc9j0jzqtcl2d8

Show more details

Published at

2023-06-07 18:03:05

Kind type

1 Short Text Note

Event JSON

{ "id": "a23a9e14e81f50d2b66acc8019f372f90c8665aebb9edbfa442ae11891f5bb62", "pubkey": "498a711971f8a0194289aee037a4c481a99e731b5151724064973cc0e0b27c84", "created_at": 1686160985, "kind": 1, "tags": [ [ "e", "9ca6cbf0b3354cf6707afa5def0d4fa957fb7ae455f26c9d41b803b01e33caa9", "", "root" ], [ "e", "c2b6d430d01b89da8db8cc324ab2495cd747564c4b72b9998513295c2183c90d", "", "reply" ], [ "p", "498a711971f8a0194289aee037a4c481a99e731b5151724064973cc0e0b27c84" ] ], "content": "📅 Original date posted:2017-06-11\n📝 Original message:On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 3:44 PM, Martijn Meijering via bitcoin-dev\n\u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e Jorge Timón wrote:\n\u003e Why not just make sure BIP 149 will never activate unless BIP 141 has\n\u003e expired unsuccessfully?\n\nRight, that would be part of it, as well as not removing the BIP141\ndeployment with bip9.\nSee https://github.com/jtimon/bitcoin/commit/62efd741740f5c75c43d78358d6318941e6d3c04\n\n\u003e If BIP 141 should unexpectly activate, then\n\u003e BIP 149 nodes would notice and act as pre-SegWit nodes indefinitely,\n\u003e but remain in consensus with BIP 141 nodes.\n\u003e\n\u003e It might be slightly less convenient for BIP 149 users to upgrade\n\u003e again, but then at least we could start deploying BIP 149 sooner.\n\nNo, if segwit activates pre nov15, bip149 nodse can detect and\ninterpret that just fine.\nThe problem if it activates post nov15, then you need a separate\nservice bit in the p2p network, for pre-BIP149 will think sw hasn't\nactivated while post-BIP149 would know it has activated.\n\nIf you release it only after nov15, you don't need to test\ncompatibility between the two for neither of this two cases.\nOr do you? Actually you only save testing the easier case of pre-nov15\nactivation.\n\n\n\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev", "sig": "ae7e499d2eb957ec83939d764018133062f789d45e01b334b9860b9fcb8bca833bd44d3f3f8570d82e861344eb588380b45b70dab28057919e83b8805b604c04" }