Btc Drak [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2015-08-19 📝 Original message:On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at ...
📅 Original date posted:2015-08-19
📝 Original message:On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 10:34 AM, Jorge Timón <
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Seems like 3 is something we want to do no matter what and therefore
> is the "most future-proof" solution.
> I wonder if I can help with that (and I know there's more people that
> would be interested).
> Where's the current "non-full" nVersion bits implementation?
> Why implement a "non-full" version instead of going with the full
> implementation directly?
There is a simple answer to this, convenience: versionbits has not been
implemented yet, and I believe the BIP is still in review stage. As it
seems likely the remaining locktime pull requests will be ready by or
before the next major release, we need a deployment method if versionbits
is not ready (which is unlikely because no-one appears to be working on it
at the moment). Pieter indicated he is OK with another IsSuperMajority()
rollout in the interim. Personally, I dont think we should let perfection
be the enemy of progress here because at the end of the day, the deployment
method is less important than the actual featureset being proposed.
That said, the features in the next soft fork proposal are all related and
best deployed as one featureset softfork, but moving forward, versionbits
seems essential to be able to roll out multiple features in parallel
without waiting for activation and enforcement each time.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150819/abd890c2/attachment.html>;
📝 Original message:On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 10:34 AM, Jorge Timón <
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Seems like 3 is something we want to do no matter what and therefore
> is the "most future-proof" solution.
> I wonder if I can help with that (and I know there's more people that
> would be interested).
> Where's the current "non-full" nVersion bits implementation?
> Why implement a "non-full" version instead of going with the full
> implementation directly?
There is a simple answer to this, convenience: versionbits has not been
implemented yet, and I believe the BIP is still in review stage. As it
seems likely the remaining locktime pull requests will be ready by or
before the next major release, we need a deployment method if versionbits
is not ready (which is unlikely because no-one appears to be working on it
at the moment). Pieter indicated he is OK with another IsSuperMajority()
rollout in the interim. Personally, I dont think we should let perfection
be the enemy of progress here because at the end of the day, the deployment
method is less important than the actual featureset being proposed.
That said, the features in the next soft fork proposal are all related and
best deployed as one featureset softfork, but moving forward, versionbits
seems essential to be able to roll out multiple features in parallel
without waiting for activation and enforcement each time.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150819/abd890c2/attachment.html>;