[Bitcoin-segwit2x] Alpha Milestone

Wed Jun 14 23:05:05 UTC 2017

On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 6:55 PM, Dr Adam Back <adam at blockstream.com> wrote:

> > Base Block Size Increase (BBSI) has very wide compatibility with
> in-the-field, deployed wallets
>
> That is no longer the case.  Many wallets rely on semi-trusted full
> nodes.  probably someone who participated in the S3ND workshop would
> have better stats.
>

Yes, as separate components.

>
> Also AFAIK no one has tested bigger blocks with the wallet(s) that are
> pure SPV.
>

This was tested years ago, and is currently being refreshed.

Several of the libs were audited and shown to be provably not sensitive to
container size change.

We welcome specific data such as the S3ND workshop outputs you reference.

Thanks,

                 Jeff

>
> Adam
>
> On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 12:43 AM, Jeff Garzik via Bitcoin-segwit2x
> <bitcoin-segwit2x at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > As far as I'm aware, there is widespread consensus inside and outside
> the WG
> > that replay protection would be nice to have.
> >
> > The technical next-step question:   What is a method that (a) provides
> > replay protection yet (b) does not require a wallet upgrade?
> >
> > We need technical specificity on replay protection to proceed further.
> >
> > More generally, it deserves underscoring that a Base Block Size Increase
> > (BBSI) has very wide compatibility with in-the-field, deployed wallets.
> > This compatibility is why BBSI hard forks are fairly unique among hard
> forks
> > - and highly pragmatic.  Summarized, changing the size of the message
> > container has a different security surface and lower wallet impact than
> > changing per-message (per-transaction) integrity or other hard fork
> details:
> > https://github.com/btc1/bitcoin/pull/11#issuecomment-306851716
> >
> > For example, it is very good that SegWit is opt-in.  This lets each site
> and
> > each wallet upgrade per-message security (transaction signing) code --
> code
> > that touches private keys -- at their own pace, as their own internal
> risk
> > evaluations dictate.
> >
> > It is adding considerable community-wide risk to require community-wide
> > updates to TX signing code in wallets, over and above node upgrade risk
> > expected in a BBSI hard fork.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 6:20 PM, Sergio Lerner via Bitcoin-segwit2x
> > <bitcoin-segwit2x at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> There are two group of people which have two different visions for
> >> Bitcoin.
> >>
> >> None of these visions is "wrong".
> >>
> >> One group values more things like decentralization, lack of government,
> >> censorship resistance, anonymity. This group thinks that Bitcoin will
> >> transform our world in 20-30 years. To reach this goal, it's of utter
> >> importance to stick to those values. There is no rush.
> >>
> >> The other group values more things like reaching one billion users in
> the
> >> next 5 years, or serving real unbanked users today, even if that
> requires a
> >> political agreement now.
> >>
> >> Both visions have their merits. But they are incompatible.
> >>
> >> Replay protection gives a chance to each of these "bitcoiners" to fully
> >> push their own vision. Both visions can co-exists. I don't care if one
> >> Bitcoin is called "Bitcoin Utopia" and the other is called "Bitcoin
> >> Enterprise". Or whatever name they are given.
> >>
> >> Please consider replay protection in segwit2x.
> >>
> >> 2017-06-14 15:22 GMT-03:00 Mike Belshe via Bitcoin-segwit2x
> >> <bitcoin-segwit2x at lists.linuxfoundation.org>:
> >>>
> >>> Thanks for raising this question, Alex.
> >>>
> >>> The team has considered this and is open to specific proposals.
> >>>
> >>> As you know, one of the primary benefits of the simple 2mb increase
> >>> approach is that existing transaction processors on the chain do not
> need
> >>> modification.  The challenge with transaction level replay protection
> is
> >>> that for most implementations, you need to rewrite all the transaction
> >>> processors to change (set some additional bit or something).  Done
> >>> improperly, this could make deployment of the 2mb increase very
> difficult on
> >>> any timeframe as you'd have to modify every wallet, exchange, payment
> >>> processor, etc.
> >>>
> >>> By contrast, if we have vast majority support combined with adequate
> >>> preparation time for all participants & exchanges, the need for this is
> >>> minimal.
> >>>
> >>> Do you have a specific technical solution to consider?  If you propose
> >>> one, it is easier to discuss than discussing in abstract.
> >>>
> >>> Mike
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Jun 14, 2017 10:35 AM, "Alex Bosworth" <alex.bosworth at gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Are things still on track for the hard fork aspect? Specifically I
> >>>> haven't identified code in the alpha for providing strong 2-way replay
> >>>> protection? (This means transactions valid on one chain should be
> invalid on
> >>>> the other, and vice-versa) And for wipe-out protection? (Once forked,
> the
> >>>> fork should remain permanent).
> >>>>
> >>>> Absent firm support for this specific hard fork from BitFinex (the
> >>>> largest volume exchange, Local Bitcoins (the largest volume peer
> exchange),
> >>>> Slush pool, Trezor, Ledger, Electrum, and many others in the industry
> and
> >>>> individuals in the development and broader community, the chance for a
> >>>> contentious fork is present, which would suggest those hard fork
> features
> >>>> would help make a BIP 102 hard fork supportable by neutral service
> providers
> >>>>
> >>>> On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 10:08 AM Mike Belshe via Bitcoin-segwit2x
> >>>> <bitcoin-segwit2x at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Hi Segwit2x team:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> As we approach the June 15 Alpha milestone, we wanted to compile a
> >>>>> status update.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> General
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Segwit2x development has been moving quickly according to plan, and
> the
> >>>>> project is in good shape.  The  development of the alpha version is
> near
> >>>>> complete, as is the initial round of testing. Testnet5 has been
> released,
> >>>>> and we we will be releasing alpha binaries by June 16th, as planned,
> which
> >>>>> are ready for further testing with the larger group.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> June 16 Alpha Deliverable
> >>>>>
> >>>>> BIP91 w/ bit4 Segwit Activation at 80%
> >>>>>
> >>>>> BIP102-style 2MB base block size increase 3mo after Segwit Activation
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Created testnet5 for testing
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Manual testing
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Alpha Period Dry Runs
> >>>>>
> >>>>> During the Alpha period, we are scheduling multiple “dry run” dates.
> >>>>> These are scheduled times when we’ll execute the 2MB Blocksize
> increase
> >>>>> across multiple parties on the test network.  We encourage as many
> >>>>> participants as possible to participate in these dry runs and report
> status
> >>>>> of how various node versions (both newer and older) execute during
> the
> >>>>> upgrade process.  To participate, parties need to run the testnet5
> alpha
> >>>>> binaries available on the btc1 github.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> To Do List
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Here are some of the open items:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Additional testing from all parties
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Published Test Plan to date
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Write a BIP for the process
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Coordinate multiple “dry run” dates until the process is smooth
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Production of Gitian builds
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Communications
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Follow the github here: https://github.com/btc1
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Subscribe the mailing list:
> >>>>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-ng
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thank You
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Finally, a big thank you to all that have contributed so far.  We
> still
> >>>>> need more developers and testers in the phases ahead, but the
> project has
> >>>>> been growing every week!
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>> Bitcoin-segwit2x mailing list
> >>>>> Bitcoin-segwit2x at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> >>>>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-segwit2x
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Sent from my iPhone
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Bitcoin-segwit2x mailing list
> >>> Bitcoin-segwit2x at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> >>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-segwit2x
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Sergio Demian Lerner
> >> Chief Scientist, RSK Labs
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Bitcoin-segwit2x mailing list
> >> Bitcoin-segwit2x at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> >> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-segwit2x
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Jeff Garzik
> > CEO and Co Founder
> > Bloq, Inc.
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Bitcoin-segwit2x mailing list
> > Bitcoin-segwit2x at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-segwit2x
> >
>

-- 
Jeff Garzik
CEO and Co Founder
Bloq, Inc.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-segwit2x/attachments/20170614/a0c321e2/attachment-0001.html>