Segregated Witness Deployed on New Bitcoin Testnet: SegNet

[News] Österreich (FMA) segnet Bitcoin-Automaten von Kurant ab

[News] Österreich (FMA) segnet Bitcoin-Automaten von Kurant ab submitted by herzmeister to BitcoinDE [link] [comments]

[bitcoin-dev] SegWit testnet is live - "I am pleased to report that as of December 31, 2015 we have been successfully running a segregated witness testnet, called segnet, and have already implemented rudimentary wallets with support."

submitted by thorjag to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

[bitcoin-dev] SegWit testnet is live - "I am pleased to report that as of December 31, 2015 we have been successfully running a segregated witness testnet, called segnet, and have already implemented rudimentary wallets with support."

submitted by thorjag to btc [link] [comments]

From Segnet Testnet to Bitcoin Testnet to Litecoin. But why?

submitted by bitsko to litecoin [link] [comments]

SegWit failures on segnet /r/Bitcoin

SegWit failures on segnet /Bitcoin submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

Segregated Witness Deployed on New Bitcoin Testnet: SegNet

Segregated Witness Deployed on New Bitcoin Testnet: SegNet submitted by BitcoinXio to btc [link] [comments]

Segregated Witness Deployed on New Bitcoin Testnet: SegNet

Segregated Witness Deployed on New Bitcoin Testnet: SegNet submitted by tylev to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Segregated Witness Deployed on New Bitcoin Testnet: SegNet

Segregated Witness Deployed on New Bitcoin Testnet: SegNet submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

Segregated Witness Deployed on New Bitcoin Testnet: SegNet

Segregated Witness Deployed on New Bitcoin Testnet: SegNet submitted by BTCNews to BTCNews [link] [comments]

[bitcoin-dev] SegWit testnet is live - "I am pleased to report that as of December 31, 2015 we have been successfully running a segregated witness testnet, called segnet, and have already implemented rudimentary wallets with support."

submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

Segregated Witness failures being coverup on r/Bitcoin/

There seems to be a blatant coverup campaign going on bitcoin/ about Segregated Witness's failures on segnet.
It's turning out that Segwit is literally a hard-fork of the network topology. It's a potential disaster on activation even with a supermajority of nodes.
I posted this on bitcoin and in 15 minutes it gets deleted.
http://i63.tinypic.com/28nn2c.png
submitted by HermanSchoenfeld to btc [link] [comments]

Samson Mow’s on 8BTC’s AMA: BU Are Low-Level CopyCats and We Do Support Onchain Scaling

Samson Mow, the COO of BTCC, has completed his AMA on 8btc on 2 Dec.
Samson has faced all the harsh questions raised and said BU is “awful” and he supports onchain Scaling.
We have move all the answers typed by Mr. Mow in person here.
Let’s see:
Q: How do you comment on BU?
A: For BU, I think it’s indeed an awful software. Actually it’s just a redesign based on Bitcoin Core as 99% of the codes are still those of Bitcoin Core. BU just has made some tiny changes. In developing BU, there are serval bugs in BU but they claim these bugs are just bugs from Bitcoin Core itself. Members from Core can tell the so called “bugs from Bitcoin Core itself” are simply caused by BU’s developers. BU is bad at coding and BU has not been through thorough tests. Many coders including Chinese and Westerners all thought BU’s codes are bad.
Besides, BU team actually has achieved nothing till now. If we say Bitcoin is a Ferrari with 100 Core members maintaining it, then BU team simply don’t know what a Ferrari is. BU only repairs bikes or even bikes are beyond their ability. All of these are because BU never has created or maintained any crypto currency. They even have never released any altcoin. I would rather believe in MaidSafeCoin or Dash’s teams than believe in BU.
Furthermore. BU changed the bitcoin’s rule of “ consensus-based principle”. BU is not based on consensus. Bitcoin’s rules are not made for mining but for users to decide the blocksize based on consensus. In order to gain support, BU now suddenly say bitcoin is created for mining, which is actually not even the thought of the developers of BU. Developers(of BU) also said they need to make some changes to conform to the consensus-based principle of bitcoin.
BU is just a form of political maneuvering that is being taken advantage of, just like Bitcoin XT and Bitcoin Classic. Those who support BU are actually not all for BU. The want to achieve their ulterior motives by supporting BU, say they want to scale blocksize, to alienate Core team or they just want to prove they are correct. Their reasons for supporting BU are all far-fetched or wrong.
(from ID Bitcoiners) Q :Does BTCC support onchain scaling ?
Yes, BTCC support onchain scaling.:)
We support any plan of scaling both on and off chain as long as they are safe and have been under thorough tests. SegeWit in essence is onchain scaling as it can make the block size bigger and enlarge the effective capacity of the blockchain for bitcoins.
Many people still think SW is not onchain scaling. But in fact SW is the fastest scaling onchain plan till now. Most of the people within the community oppose a hasty hard-fork; If we can reach consensus on SW, then we can achieve onchain scaling in several months, making it a reality to have bigger blocksize and capacity for more transactions.
Q:BTCC supports SW as mining pool(miners) or as an exchange.
A: we support SW as believe it can improve bitcoin and enlarge the capacity of block, making outstanding technologies like lighting possible. This will bring an all win situation for bitcoin’s traders, miners, buyers or holders. We have made the supportive decision based on our analysis of it and its future potential.
Q: under what circumstances will BTCC give up running a bitcoin app in production with activated SW soft-fork?
I don’t think I have any reason to give up SegeWit till now as it will bring many improvements to bitcoin. It fixes bitcoin’s malleability. If SW is activated, the use of lightening network becomes possible. So from technical angle, I will not give up SW.
But there are also chances for us to give up SW. Like if other mining pools give us pressure then we may make concessions. If the activation phase of SW comes to an end, then we might also give up SW. But in general, till now I do not see any reason not to support SW. SW is a technical progress instead of a political fight. It should not be affected by others’ emotion or preferences. SW is a technical changes of bitcoin’s the core codes.
If political fight in the bitcoin community results in joint pressure mounting to us, I would say this is not the situation we want to see. We need to make decisions based on the pros and cons of the SW, and on the consensus of the Core’s team members as Core’s members are all excellent programmers. These coders spent a lot of time considering the situation to explore the best scaling solution to fix problems that most of the ordinary people feel hard to understand. If others’ pressure makes us unable to run SW or we press others to run SW, the situation will be bad. I think every should make decisions based on the pros and cons of technicals.
Currently there are many rumors and misgiving within Chinese community. Many people are maligning SW. Like some people are claiming Core will change the POW into PoS; SW is poison; SW is not onchain scaling, or the lighting network will carve up miners’ benefits…all of these are rumors without any source. SW is indeed onchain scaling. Except BU, no developer or engineer would say SW is not onchain sacling.
Q: Won’t BTCC follow the 2015 Beijing Pool Declaration and 2016 Hong Kong Consensus anymore?
A: This seems to be a question of common concerns. I would like to reply in details. Wish it can be clearer for all.
For 2015 Beijng Mining Pool Declaration, there is a long story behind it. You can’t say what happed a year ago equally applies in today’s situation as both internet world and crypto area are evolving fast. The Consensus was actually response to Bitcoin XT, when Gavin Andresen and Mike Hearn firstly incited political fight within bitcoin community which has been witnessed by many mining pools.
At that time. Mike and Gavin tried to contact us quite frequently. They lobbied us and wanted us to use their Bitcoin XT. They said it can scale the blocksize into a 20MB one. They said the block was going to be full and actions must be taken. It’s until now that we are aware that it’s natural for the block to be full. If there is no full block, then there is no profits for the miners. The block space must maintain its scarcity to be valuable. But at that time we were not familiar with technical stuff and didn’t know how capable the Mike and Gavin were. We just knew 20MB was really bigger than 1MB and many other mining pools also felt the need to act so we were also a bit worried. But after some consideration, we believe to have 8MB block size was rather safe. To scale to 8 MB is referred to the Bitcoin XT’s plan of scaling to 20MB. We even didn’t intend to scale to 8MB blocksize. After the Beijing conference, Bitcoin XT distorted our intention by saying that our roadmap is to scale from 8MB to 8GB size. Many mining pools felt they were betrayed.
I don’t think that anyone should be required to conform to the 2015 Beijing Mining Pool Consensus. If it’s a must for everyone to conform to it, then BU should not have gained any support since we just need to scale to 8MB.
For 2016 Hong Kong consensus, it was actually the response to Bitcoin Classic. Bitcoin Classics misled us by saying that all people were supportive of them. Actually everyone at that time believed other people all support Bitcoin Classics so it turned out all people were for Bitcoin Classics. In was in the context that we held that Hong Kong Conference. The consensus stated that Core would write hard-fork codes. So many people thought it was an agreement between BTCC and Core. But actually the consensus was a response for Bitcoin Classic. There were 5 Core members at the site and they signed the consensus. But Bitcoin Core is neither a company nor an organization. It’s only some individuals and companies who support the development of Bitcoin Core. No one can compel Bitcoin Core to do anything and Core will not compel others to do anything. either. This is just the feature of bitcoin. Bitcoin is alive. It’s not a company which can post something on its official site. Likely, Bitcoin Core’s software will not update automatically. (Apple and Microsoft will send you a new version and you have to update). The update of Bitcoin Core is out of your free choices and you can also downgrade the system.
In fact, there are others things in Hong Kong consensus that have not been followed like Core hasn’t completed the development of SW in time. But this just proved their prudence. They will not accept a SW without thorough and sound tests. We have made some mistakes during the Hong Kong Consensus period. We were not familiar with the development of bitcoins. We have kept on learning and improving these years.
Actually Core team indeed has written the hard-fork codes which are published in BIP draft. To seem please find: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2016-February/012377.html https://petertodd.org/2016/hardforks-after-the-segwit-blocksize-increase https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2016-February/012342.html https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2016-Decembe013332.html
In the conference in San Francisco this summer, Core has displayed these codes but the community didn’t give many responses. Core members are trying their best to write code and the process is continuing. They can’t compel the Core to publish the hard-fork publicly as it requires the consensus within the whole Core members. There is no leader in Core.
Core also release 0.13, a version without SW for those who wants the most updated technique but are not willing to use SW. This version contains the most updated techniques like Schnorr signing.
Q: Does BTCC have any contingency plan for any bug which has been discussed on reddit?
Reddit is only a platform for people to share news or discuss anything. The so-called bug discussed on /btc are only the random guess by those who do not know technical stuff.
If you really want to discuss bug issues of SW, please subscribe Bitcoin Core’s email and go to their IRC chatting room. That’s where bug issue should be discussed effectively. Core has all of the communication records of Slack, IRC and subscription list published on the internet, though people won’t go there and see. People like to go to reddit. Reddit is not for technical discussion. It’s for…catfight. These so-called bugs have already been discussed between core members. It is because of these discussions of bugs’ elimination and tests that SW has come out later than expected, Core wants to provide reliable and bug-free codes to support its 11 billion USD worth industry of bitcoin.
Now we look at BU, it hasn’t had many test reports. Actually Core has reported bugs of BU and BU didn’t give any response.
Activity of BU on GitHub Imgur
Activity of Core Imgur
Core has done many tests and they even found bugs of library used by C++. https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/507145d78595e052ce13368e122f72c85093992c https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9229
Q: Dose BTTC support that 1M blocksize should remain so permanently or believe it should be scaled at a proper time in the future?
Imgur
It is a misunderstanding commonly seen in Chinese community that Core wants the block size to remain 1MB forever.
Core’s road map is just hard fork. But optimization should proceed the hard-fork. Core never said they will hold IMB block size permanently. We don’t want a block with only 1MB size, either. But If bitcoin doesn’t possess the feature of decentralization, then bitcoin is useless. It would be something like a database. Thus the smaller the blocksize is, the better bitcoin is as everyone can run it. You can’t just take care of yourself. A hard disk may be extremely expensive for the poor people. Since those who boast bigger size do not represent all the community, what we could do is to lower the threshold as possibly as we can.
Many people may never involve themselves in Ethereum community. We wanted to run our ETC mining pool but we have encountered many problems only because the block size is too big. You can’t only envision inserting the blocksize in a disk without considering communication, synchronization and orphanage rate. Scaling is not that easy. What many people do not understand is that scaling shouldn’t be done without due consideration. If we put all the date from google and YouTube in everyone’s computer like ledgers of blockchain, then to double the data of Google and YouTube means to double the data of everyone. This will lead to an increasing pressure of the whole network. You have to pay the price for scaling. Those who think the costs are nothing for them simply can not represent everyone.
SW indeed will scale the blocksize and Core team have some techniques for omptimization like the Schnorr signing. Schnorr can compress the transactions of 16MB into a 1MB block under perfect condition. Now the theoretical size is to compress 4MB data into a 1MB blocksize. There are many other methods to make 1MB size block size handle more data. But if needed, we can scale the blocksize into 2MB.
Added: Core team is highly transparent. All their meetings are available on the internet. See https://bitcoincore.org/en/meetings/
Q: Has BTCC Pool’s support of SW gained understanding and support from miners in your pool? In another way, has BTCC pool explained pros and cons of various options? Any relevant explanatory information can be shared to other pools for reference?
A: we have a professional management team for mining pools and we have maintained active communication with them. Last week I just went to Chengdu of Sichuan Province to meet miners there. We have explained the benefits of SW to the miners of Chengdu and they expressed their supportive attitude. BTCC indeed will explain to our miners the pros and cons of different scaling plans. In the meantime, we also provide reference documents on our Weibo and Wechat to miners, traders and bitcoins fans. We invited one Lightening founder to Shanghai for a meeting with friends in Shanghai. Next week (11th NOV), We will also invite some Core members to be in Shanghai to discuss SW with friends present. We have provided the information of Bitcoin, SW and scaling plans to not only miners and but all users of BTCC.
Q: Has BTCC pool done extensive test on 0.13.1 SegWit code? Can you release test report?
A: Sure. Thorough tests need to be done. In early April 2016, Core has contacted China’s miners including BTCC, F2Pool, AntPool BW to test SW on SegNet; In later April our pool has mined the blocks containing SW transactions; In May, mining pools including BW all completed the tests of SegNet and they have mined SW block; in October, BTCC began to test Bitcoin Core 0.13.1 and the improvements of 0.13.1 has begun since; 18th Oct, the vote of SW officially kicks off. Sorry I don’t have test files for you. But till now, judging from the mining pool’s operation, everything is fine.
The AMA is conducted in Chinese.
Knowing that this AMA really matters for the both Chinese and Western community to know the ideas and thoughts of others, we have tried our best to keep the original meaning and tones in plain English.
To see the original Chinese AMA text,
Please first sign in on news.8btc.com , the international site of 8tbc, and then go directly to the thread:
http://8btc.com/thread-42814-1-1.html
Tune In http://news.8btc.com/ for more fist hand information on CN community.
submitted by 8btccom to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Bitcoin dev IRC meeting in layman's terms (2016-01-07)

Once again my attempt to summarize and explain the weekly bitcoin developer meeting in layman's terms. Link to last summarisation
Disclaimer
Please bear in mind I'm not a developer so some things might be incorrect or plain wrong. There are no decisions being made in these meetings, but since a fair amount of devs are present it's a good representation. Copyright: Public domain
link to this week logs Meeting minutes by meetbot
Main topics discussed where:
0.12 Release candidate Detailed roadmap for next projects
Short topics/notes
Gmaxwell has asked Luke-Jr to take over as BIP-editor. He'll be working on clearing up the back-log. He mailed the mailinglist for information.
All platforms seem to compile bitcoin with C++11 now. Travis still needs a C++11 compiler, which cfields will enable.
Segnet will do a backwards incompatible change soon, to change the commitment structure.
0.12 Release candidate
Bitcoin Core 0.12 is scheduled for release around February and introduces a lot of fixes and improvements.
It still needs some more info in the release notes. PR's #7151 and #7149 are mentioned to possibly still be included in 0.12 as well as a quick fix for #7098 (to be written). Morcos feels strongly that releasing 0.12 as is, is pretty bad. Due to the smartfee changes stuck transactions should be really rare, but if they happen it's worse than 0.11, as the network more easily "forgets" transactions. PR #7312 "Add RPC call abandontransaction" is proposed by Morcos to be a quick-fix to enable users to make their wallet forget about the inputs to a transaction that's not in the mempool. Better solutions should be build for 0.12.1
Take a look at PR's #7151, #7149 and #7312 Cfields will work on a fix for #7098
Detailed roadmap for next projects
Morcos makes a request for some direction on what sort of timeline projects are on, and what the order of implementation should roughly be. This so there's a concentration of effort and focus. A more clear plan could result in investing resources into the right parts.
Jonasschnelli will work on RBF features for the wallet. Cfields is planning to post a request for comments for a network stack overhaul next week. BIP 9 versionbits is moved back in priority a bit. Libconsensus refactoring needs a scheduled time to do, as well as C++11. Clang format might not be worth it, if so we need to communicate that it won't happen.
Everyone that is working on something that they plan to have finished for 0.13 should send wumpus his proposals, so he can merge it into a plan.
Participants
Luke-Jr Luke Dashjr wumpus Wladimir J. van der Laan sipa Pieter Wuille morcos Alex Morcos jonasshnelli Jonas Schnelli cfields Cory Fields petertodd Peter Todd MarcoFalke Marco Falke sdaftuar Suhas Daftuar jgarzik Jeff Garzik btcdrak btcdrak CodeShark Eric Lombrozo droark Douglas Roark jtimon Jorge Timón 
Comic relief
19:40 sipa there is a moral obligation to have VB or something with similar functionality available 
(refering to versionbits)
 19:41 Luke-Jr "Pieter Wuille proposes a moral requirement to rewrite Bitcoin in Visual Basic." 
submitted by G1lius to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Samson Mow’s on 8BTC’s AMA: BU Are terrible and We Do Support Onchain Scaling

Samson Mow, the COO of BTCC, has completed his AMA on 8btc. Samson has faced all the harsh questions raised and said BU is “awful” and he supports onchain Scaling.
We have move all the answers typed by Mr. Mow in person here.
Let’s see:
Q: How do you comment on BU?
A: For BU, I think it’s indeed an awful software. Actually it’s just a redesign based on Bitcoin Core as 99% of the codes are still those of Bitcoin Core. BU just has made some tiny changes. In developing BU, there are serval bugs in BU but they claim these bugs are just bugs from Bitcoin Core itself. Members from Core can tell the so called “bugs from Bitcoin Core itself” are simply caused by BU’s developers. BU is bad at coding and BU has not been through thorough tests. Many coders including Chinese and Westerners all thought BU’s codes are bad.
Besides, BU team actually has achieved nothing till now. If we say Bitcoin is a Ferrari with 100 Core members maintaining it, then BU team simply don’t know what a Ferrari is. BU only repairs bikes or even bikes are beyond their ability. All of these are because BU never has created or maintained any crypto currency. They even have never released any altcoin. I would rather believe in MaidSafeCoin or Dash’s teams than believe in BU.
Furthermore. BU changed the bitcoin’s rule of “ consensus-based principle”. BU is not based on consensus. Bitcoin’s rules are not made for mining but for users to decide the blocksize based on consensus. In order to gain support, BU now suddenly say bitcoin is created for mining, which is actually not even the thought of the developers of BU. Developers(of BU) also said they need to make some changes to conform to the consensus-based principle of bitcoin.
BU is just a form of political maneuvering that is being taken advantage of, just like Bitcoin XT and Bitcoin Classic. Those who support BU are actually not all for BU. The want to achieve their ulterior motives by supporting BU, say they want to scale blocksize, to alienate Core team or they just want to prove they are correct. Their reasons for supporting BU are all far-fetched or wrong.
(from ID Bitcoiners) Q :Does BTCC support onchain scaling ?
Yes, BTCC support onchain scaling.:)
We support any plan of scaling both on and off chain as long as they are safe and have been under thorough tests. SegeWit in essence is onchain scaling as it can make the block size bigger and enlarge the effective capacity of the blockchain for bitcoins.
Many people still think SW is not onchain scaling. But in fact SW is the fastest scaling onchain plan till now. Most of the people within the community oppose a hasty hard-fork; If we can reach consensus on SW, then we can achieve onchain scaling in several months, making it a reality to have bigger blocksize and capacity for more transactions.
Q:BTCC supports SW as mining pool(miners) or as an exchange.
A: we support SW as believe it can improve bitcoin and enlarge the capacity of block, making outstanding technologies like lighting possible. This will bring an all win situation for bitcoin’s traders, miners, buyers or holders. We have made the supportive decision based on our analysis of it and its future potential.
Q: under what circumstances will BTCC give up running a bitcoin app in production with activated SW soft-fork?
I don’t think I have any reason to give up SegeWit till now as it will bring many improvements to bitcoin. It fixes bitcoin’s malleability. If SW is activated, the use of lightening network becomes possible. So from technical angle, I will not give up SW.
But there are also chances for us to give up SW. Like if other mining pools give us pressure then we may make concessions. If the activation phase of SW comes to an end, then we might also give up SW. But in general, till now I do not see any reason not to support SW. SW is a technical progress instead of a political fight. It should not be affected by others’ emotion or preferences. SW is a technical changes of bitcoin’s the core codes.
If political fight in the bitcoin community results in joint pressure mounting to us, I would say this is not the situation we want to see. We need to make decisions based on the pros and cons of the SW, and on the consensus of the Core’s team members as Core’s members are all excellent programmers. These coders spent a lot of time considering the situation to explore the best scaling solution to fix problems that most of the ordinary people feel hard to understand. If others’ pressure makes us unable to run SW or we press others to run SW, the situation will be bad. I think every should make decisions based on the pros and cons of technicals.
Currently there are many rumors and misgiving within Chinese community. Many people are maligning SW. Like some people are claiming Core will change the POW into PoS; SW is poison; SW is not onchain scaling, or the lighting network will carve up miners’ benefits…all of these are rumors without any source. SW is indeed onchain scaling. Except BU, no developer or engineer would say SW is not onchain sacling.
Q: Won’t BTCC follow the 2015 Beijing Pool Declaration and 2016 Hong Kong Consensus anymore?
A: This seems to be a question of common concerns. I would like to reply in details. Wish it can be clearer for all.
For 2015 Beijng Mining Pool Declaration, there is a long story behind it. You can’t say what happed a year ago equally applies in today’s situation as both internet world and crypto area are evolving fast. The Consensus was actually response to Bitcoin XT, when Gavin Andresen and Mike Hearn firstly incited political fight within bitcoin community which has been witnessed by many mining pools.
At that time. Mike and Gavin tried to contact us quite frequently. They lobbied us and wanted us to use their Bitcoin XT. They said it can scale the blocksize into a 20MB one. They said the block was going to be full and actions must be taken. It’s until now that we are aware that it’s natural for the block to be full. If there is no full block, then there is no profits for the miners. The block space must maintain its scarcity to be valuable. But at that time we were not familiar with technical stuff and didn’t know how capable the Mike and Gavin were. We just knew 20MB was really bigger than 1MB and many other mining pools also felt the need to act so we were also a bit worried. But after some consideration, we believe to have 8MB block size was rather safe. To scale to 8 MB is referred to the Bitcoin XT’s plan of scaling to 20MB. We even didn’t intend to scale to 8MB blocksize. After the Beijing conference, Bitcoin XT distorted our intention by saying that our roadmap is to scale from 8MB to 8GB size. Many mining pools felt they were betrayed.
I don’t think that anyone should be required to conform to the 2015 Beijing Mining Pool Consensus. If it’s a must for everyone to conform to it, then BU should not have gained any support since we just need to scale to 8MB.
For 2016 Hong Kong consensus, it was actually the response to Bitcoin Classic. Bitcoin Classics misled us by saying that all people were supportive of them. Actually everyone at that time believed other people all support Bitcoin Classics so it turned out all people were for Bitcoin Classics. In was in the context that we held that Hong Kong Conference. The consensus stated that Core would write hard-fork codes. So many people thought it was an agreement between BTCC and Core. But actually the consensus was a response for Bitcoin Classic. There were 5 Core members at the site and they signed the consensus. But Bitcoin Core is neither a company nor an organization. It’s only some individuals and companies who support the development of Bitcoin Core. No one can compel Bitcoin Core to do anything and Core will not compel others to do anything. either. This is just the feature of bitcoin. Bitcoin is alive. It’s not a company which can post something on its official site. Likely, Bitcoin Core’s software will not update automatically. (Apple and Microsoft will send you a new version and you have to update). The update of Bitcoin Core is out of your free choices and you can also downgrade the system.
In fact, there are others things in Hong Kong consensus that have not been followed like Core hasn’t completed the development of SW in time. But this just proved their prudence. They will not accept a SW without thorough and sound tests. We have made some mistakes during the Hong Kong Consensus period. We were not familiar with the development of bitcoins. We have kept on learning and improving these years.
Actually Core team indeed has written the hard-fork codes which are published in BIP draft. To seem please find: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2016-February/012377.html https://petertodd.org/2016/hardforks-after-the-segwit-blocksize-increase https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2016-February/012342.html https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2016-Decembe013332.html
In the conference in San Francisco this summer, Core has displayed these codes but the community didn’t give many responses. Core members are trying their best to write code and the process is continuing. They can’t compel the Core to publish the hard-fork publicly as it requires the consensus within the whole Core members. There is no leader in Core.
Core also release 0.13, a version without SW for those who wants the most updated technique but are not willing to use SW. This version contains the most updated techniques like Schnorr signing.
Q: Does BTCC have any contingency plan for any bug which has been discussed on reddit?
Reddit is only a platform for people to share news or discuss anything. The so-called bug discussed on /btc are only the random guess by those who do not know technical stuff.
If you really want to discuss bug issues of SW, please subscribe Bitcoin Core’s email and go to their IRC chatting room. That’s where bug issue should be discussed effectively. Core has all of the communication records of Slack, IRC and subscription list published on the internet, though people won’t go there and see. People like to go to reddit. Reddit is not for technical discussion. It’s for…catfight. These so-called bugs have already been discussed between core members. It is because of these discussions of bugs’ elimination and tests that SW has come out later than expected, Core wants to provide reliable and bug-free codes to support its 11 billion USD worth industry of bitcoin.
Now we look at BU, it hasn’t had many test reports. Actually Core has reported bugs of BU and BU didn’t give any response.
Activity of BU on GitHub http://i.imgur.com/ElZ71vv.jpg
Activity of Core GitHub http://i.imgur.com/XbNGUqz.jpg
Core has done many tests and they even found bugs of library used by C++. https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/507145d78595e052ce13368e122f72c85093992c https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9229
Q: Dose BTTC support that 1M blocksize should remain so permanently or believe it should be scaled at a proper time in the future?
http://i.imgur.com/P1duZTn.png
It is a misunderstanding commonly seen in Chinese community that Core wants the block size to remain 1MB forever.
Core’s road map is just hard fork. But optimization should proceed the hard-fork. Core never said they will hold IMB block size permanently. We don’t want a block with only 1MB size, either. But If bitcoin doesn’t possess the feature of decentralization, then bitcoin is useless. It would be something like a database. Thus the smaller the blocksize is, the better bitcoin is as everyone can run it. You can’t just take care of yourself. A hard disk may be extremely expensive for the poor people. Since those who boast bigger size do not represent all the community, what we could do is to lower the threshold as possibly as we can.
Many people may never involve themselves in Ethereum community. We wanted to run our ETC mining pool but we have encountered many problems only because the block size is too big. You can’t only envision inserting the blocksize in a disk without considering communication, synchronization and orphanage rate. Scaling is not that easy. What many people do not understand is that scaling shouldn’t be done without due consideration. If we put all the date from google and YouTube in everyone’s computer like ledgers of blockchain, then to double the data of Google and YouTube means to double the data of everyone. This will lead to an increasing pressure of the whole network. You have to pay the price for scaling. Those who think the costs are nothing for them simply can not represent everyone.
SW indeed will scale the blocksize and Core team have some techniques for omptimization like the Schnorr signing. Schnorr can compress the transactions of 16MB into a 1MB block under perfect condition. Now the theoretical size is to compress 4MB data into a 1MB blocksize. There are many other methods to make 1MB size block size handle more data. But if needed, we can scale the blocksize into 2MB.
Added: Core team is highly transparent. All their meetings are available on the internet. See https://bitcoincore.org/en/meetings/
Q: Has BTCC Pool’s support of SW gained understanding and support from miners in your pool? In another way, has BTCC pool explained pros and cons of various options? Any relevant explanatory information can be shared to other pools for reference?
A: we have a professional management team for mining pools and we have maintained active communication with them. Last week I just went to Chengdu of Sichuan Province to meet miners there. We have explained the benefits of SW to the miners of Chengdu and they expressed their supportive attitude. BTCC indeed will explain to our miners the pros and cons of different scaling plans. In the meantime, we also provide reference documents on our Weibo and Wechat to miners, traders and bitcoins fans. We invited one Lightening founder to Shanghai for a meeting with friends in Shanghai. Next week (11th NOV), We will also invite some Core members to be in Shanghai to discuss SW with friends present. We have provided the information of Bitcoin, SW and scaling plans to not only miners and but all users of BTCC.
Q: Has BTCC pool done extensive test on 0.13.1 SegWit code? Can you release test report?
A: Sure. Thorough tests need to be done. In early April 2016, Core has contacted China’s miners including BTCC, F2Pool, AntPool BW to test SW on SegNet; In later April our pool has mined the blocks containing SW transactions; In May, mining pools including BW all completed the tests of SegNet and they have mined SW block; in October, BTCC began to test Bitcoin Core 0.13.1 and the improvements of 0.13.1 has begun since; 18th Oct, the vote of SW officially kicks off. Sorry I don’t have test files for you. But till now, judging from the mining pool’s operation, everything is fine.
The AMA is conducted in Chinese.
Knowing that this AMA really matters for the both Chinese and Western community to know the ideas and thoughts of others, we have tried our best to keep the original meaning and tones in plain English.
To see the original Chinese AMA text,
Please first sign in on news.8btc.com, the international site of 8tbc, and then go directly to the thread:
http://8btc.com/thread-42814-1-1.html
Tune In http://news.8btc.com/ for more fist hand information on CN community.
submitted by 8btccom to btc [link] [comments]

SegWit failures on segnet

There appear to be issues in segnet (Segregated Witness testnet) where by the network-topology forks into two groups (segwit and non-segwit).
Since communication doesn't bridge between these groups effectively, block announcements are not flood-filling the segnet as expected leading each fork to mine their own subchain, until finally a major reorg happens.
As a blockchain developer, and someone who has used testnet and mainnet for storing assets (color coin), I know there are significant differences between the testnet/mainnet and it is unclear what effects Segregated Witness would have if activated on mainnet.
Since the network literally forks into two groups, it is essentially a hard-fork. Would not the best approach be to implement a clean hard-fork for segwit rather than letting non-adopters linger in an unreliable, high-orphan subnet which reorgs unpredictably?
[UPDATE] I've been banned from bitcoin/ as a result of this post and am unable to respond to posts directly, only edit original. In response to nullc post regarding fungability, he does not seem to understand that authoring an SW transactions raw is totally different than non-SW transaction. There will be a demand for non-SW UTXO's since only they can be spent by existing infrastructure that do protocol manually (like my blockchainsql.io).
submitted by HermanSchoenfeld to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Bitcoin dev IRC meeting in layman's terms (2016-01-14)

Once again my attempt to summarize and explain the weekly bitcoin developer meeting in layman's terms. Link to last summarisation
Disclaimer
Please bear in mind I'm not a developer so some things might be incorrect or plain wrong. There are no decisions being made in these meetings, but since a fair amount of devs are present it's a good representation. Copyright: Public domain

Logs

Main topics

Versionbits

background

BIP 9 Currently softforks have been done by the isSuperMajority mechanism, meaning when 95% of the last 1000 blocks have a version number higher than X the fork is deployed. A new way of doing this is currently being worked on and that uses all bits of the version number, appropriately being called versionbits. So instead of a fork happening when the version is larger than (for example) 00000000011 (3), a fork happens when (for example) the 3rd bit is up (so 00100000011). This way softforks can be deployed simultaneous and independent of each other.

meeting comments

Morcos is volunteering to take over championing this proposal as CodeShark and Rusty are busy on other things. He'll review both implementations and then decide on which implementation he'll base his work upon. He notes that if non-core implementations are trying to do something else (and are using nVersion for their signaling) while segregated witness is being deployed, not conflicting will be important so users of other versions can also support segregated witness. If there's an agreement with this approach it's necessary that versionbits is ready before the segregated witness deployment. jtimon has some suggestions to make the implementation less complicated and more flexible.

meeting conclusion

Morcos will champion the new reference implementation for BIP9: Versionbits.

Status of segregated witness

background

Segregated witness changes the structure of transactions so that the signatures can be separated from the rest of the transactions. This allows for bandwidth savings for relay, pruning of old signatures, softforking all future script changes by introducing script versions and solves all unintentional forms of malleability. During the last scaling bitcoin conference Pieter Wuille presented a way of doing this via a softfork, and proposed increasing the maximum amount of transactions in a block by discounting signature data towards the total blocksize. Segregated witness is part of the capacity increase roadmap for bitcoin-core. More detailed explanations: - By Pieter Wuille at the San Francisco bitcoin developer meetup (more technical) - By Andreas Antonopoulos in the let's talk bitcoin podcast (less technical)

meeting comments

Segnet, the testnet for segregated transactions, will be going to it's 3rd version soon. Luke-Jr has assigned all the segregated witness BIPs to a 14x range. Currently there are 4 BIPs: 141, 142, 143 and 144.

Status of 0.12 bitcoin-core release

background

Bitcoin Core 0.12 is scheduled for release around February and introduces a lot of fixes and improvements. (release notes) There's a release candidate 0.12rc1 available at https://bitcoin.org/bin/bitcoin-core-0.12.0/test/

meeting comments

Luke-Jr feels PR's #7149, #7339 and #7340 should have been in 0.12, but are now really late and possibly impractical to get in. For gitian builders: 0.12rc1's osx sig attach descriptor fails due to a missing package (that's not actually needed). Rather than using the in-tree descriptor, use the one from #7342. This is fixed for rc2. "fundrawtransaction" and "setban" should be added to the release notes. At some point it makes more sense to document these commands elsewhere and link to it in the release notes, as they've become very lengthy. Wumpus thinks the release notes have too much details, they're not meant to be a substitute for documentation.

meeting conclusion

Close PR #7142 as it's now part of #7148 Everyone is free to improve on the release notes, just submit a PR.

consensus code encapsulation (libconsensus)

background

Satoshi wasn't the best programmer out there, which leaves a pretty messy code. Ideally you'd have the part of the code that influences the network consensus separate, but in bitcoin it's all intertwined. Libconsensus is what eventually should become this part. This way people can more easily make changes in the non-consensus part without fear of causing a network fork. This however is a slow and dangerous project of moving lots of code around.

meeting comments

jtimon has 4 libconsensus related PRs open, namely #7091 #7287 #7311 and #7310 He thinks any "big picture branch" will be highly unreadable without merging something like #7310 first. The longest "big picture branch" he currently has is https://github.com/jtimon/bitcoin/commits/libconsensus-f2 He'll document the plan and "big picture" in stages: 1. have something to call libconsensus: expose verifyScript. (Done) 2. put the rest of the consensus critical code, excluding storage in the same building package (see #7091) 3. discuss a complete C API for libconsensus 4. separate it into a sub-repository Wumpus notes he'd like to start with 3 as soon as possible as an API would be good to guide this.

meeting conclusion

review #7091 #7287 #7311 and #7310

Locktime PRs

background

BIP 68 Consensus-enforced transaction replacement signaled via sequence numbers. BIP 112 CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY. BIP 113 Median time-past as endpoint for lock-time calculations. In short: BIP 68 changes the meaning of the sequence number field to a relative locktime. BIP 112 makes that field accessible to the bitcoin scripting system. BIP 113 enables the usage of GetMedianTimePast (the median of the previous 11 blocks) from the prior block in lock-time transactions.

meeting comments

We need to make a choice between 2 implementations, namely #6312 and #7184. PR #7184 is a result of the CreateNewBlock optimisations not being compatible with #6312. jtimon thinks it could be merged relatively soon as #7184 is based on #6312 which has plenty of testing and review.

meeting conclusion

Close #6312 in favor of #7184. Morcos will fix the open nits on #7184 btcdrak will update the BIP-text

Participants

wumpus Wladimir J. van der Laan btcdrak btcdrak morcos Alex Morcos jtimon Jorge Timón Luke-Jr Luke Dashjr MarcoFalke Marco Falke jonasshnelli Jonas Schnelli cfields Cory Fields sipa Pieter Wuille kanzure Bryan Bishop droark Douglas Roark sdaftuar Suhas Daftuar Diablo-D3 Patrick McFarland 

Comic relief

19:54 wumpus #meetingstop 19:54 wumpus #stopmeeting 19:54 btcdrak haha 19:54 MarcoFalke #closemeeting 19:54 wumpus #endmeeting 19:54 lightningbot` Meeting ended Thu Jan 14 19:54:26 2016 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) 
submitted by G1lius to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Now that segwit is merged, what are some good ways to contribute to lightning development?

I see the lightning C and lnd repos still mention segnet. Would it be OK to use the current bitcoin testnet now (I know segwit's been working on testnet for a while, just curious why it's not already in use)? Any potential hold ups? Thanks.
rustyreddit roasbeef
submitted by throckmortonsign to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Bitcoin dev IRC meeting in layman's terms (2016-01-07)

Once again my attempt to summarize and explain the weekly bitcoin developer meeting in layman's terms. Link to last summarisation
Disclaimer
Please bear in mind I'm not a developer so some things might be incorrect or plain wrong. There are no decisions being made in these meetings, but since a fair amount of devs are present it's a good representation. Copyright: Public domain
link to this week logs Meeting minutes by meetbot
Main topics discussed where:
0.12 Release candidate Detailed roadmap for next projects
Short topics/notes
Gmaxwell has asked Luke-Jr to take over as BIP-editor. He'll be working on clearing up the back-log. He mailed the mailinglist for information.
All platforms seem to compile bitcoin with C++11 now. Travis still needs a C++11 compiler, which cfields will enable.
Segnet will do a backwards incompatible change soon, to change the commitment structure.
0.12 Release candidate
Bitcoin Core 0.12 is scheduled for release around February and introduces a lot of fixes and improvements.
It still needs some more info in the release notes. PR's #7151 and #7149 are mentioned to possibly still be included in 0.12 as well as a quick fix for #7098 (to be written). Morcos feels strongly that releasing 0.12 as is, is pretty bad. Due to the smartfee changes stuck transactions should be really rare, but if they happen it's worse than 0.11, as the network more easily "forgets" transactions. PR #7312 "Add RPC call abandontransaction" is proposed by Morcos to be a quick-fix to enable users to make their wallet forget about the inputs to a transaction that's not in the mempool. Better solutions should be build for 0.12.1
Take a look at PR's #7151, #7149 and #7312 Cfields will work on a fix for #7098
Detailed roadmap for next projects
Morcos makes a request for some direction on what sort of timeline projects are on, and what the order of implementation should roughly be. This so there's a concentration of effort and focus. A more clear plan could result in investing resources into the right parts.
Jonasschnelli will work on RBF features for the wallet. Cfields is planning to post a request for comments for a network stack overhaul next week. BIP 9 versionbits is moved back in priority a bit. Libconsensus refactoring needs a scheduled time to do, as well as C++11. Clang format might not be worth it, if so we need to communicate that it won't happen.
Everyone that is working on something that they plan to have finished for 0.13 should send wumpus his proposals, so he can merge it into a plan.
Participants
Luke-Jr Luke Dashjr wumpus Wladimir J. van der Laan sipa Pieter Wuille morcos Alex Morcos jonasshnelli Jonas Schnelli cfields Cory Fields petertodd Peter Todd MarcoFalke Marco Falke sdaftuar Suhas Daftuar jgarzik Jeff Garzik btcdrak btcdrak CodeShark Eric Lombrozo droark Douglas Roark jtimon Jorge Timón 
Comic relief
19:40 sipa there is a moral obligation to have VB or something with similar functionality available 
(refering to versionbits) 19:41 Luke-Jr "Pieter Wuille proposes a moral requirement to rewrite Bitcoin in Visual Basic."
submitted by G1lius to btc [link] [comments]

Forcenet: an experimental network with a new header format | Johnson Lau | Dec 04 2016

Johnson Lau on Dec 04 2016:
Based on Luke Dashjr’s code and BIP: https://github.com/luke-jbips/blob/bip-mmhf/bip-mmhf.mediawiki , I created an experimental network to show how a new header format may be implemented.
Basically, the header hash is calculated in a way that non-upgrading nodes would see it as a block with only the coinbase tx and zero output value. They are effectively broken as they won’t see any transactions confirmed. This allows rewriting most of the rules related to block and transaction validity. Such technique has different names like soft-hardfork, firmfork, evil softfork, and could be itself a controversial topic. However, I’d rather not to focus on its soft-hardfork property, as that would be trivial to turn this into a true hardfork (e.g. setting the sign bit in block nVersion, or setting the most significant bit in the dummy coinbase nLockTime)
Instead of its soft-HF property, I think the more interesting thing is the new header format. The current bitcoin header has only 80 bytes. It provides only 32bits of nonce space and is far not enough for ASICs. It also provides no room for committing to additional data. Therefore, people are forced to put many different data in the coinbase transaction, such as merge-mining commitments, and the segwit commitment. It is not a ideal solution, especially for light wallets.
Following the practice of segwit development of making a experimental network (segnet), I made something similar and call it the Forcenet (as it forces legacy nodes to follow the post-fork chain)
The header of forcenet is mostly described in Luke’s BIP, but I have made some amendments as I implemented it. The format is (size in parentheses; little endian):
Height (4), BIP9 signalling field (4), hardfork signalling field (3), merge-mining hard fork signalling field (1), prev hash (32), timestamp (4), nonce1 (4), nonce2 (4), nonce3 (compactSize + variable), Hash TMR (32), Hash WMR (32), total tx size (8) , total tx weight (8), total sigops (8), number of tx (4), merkle branches leading to header C (compactSize + 32 bit hashes)
In addition to increasing the max block size, I also showed how the calculation and validation of witness commitment may be changed with a new header. For example, since the commitment is no longer in the coinbase tx, we don’t need to use a 0000….0000 hash for the coinbase tx like in BIP141.
Something not yet done:
  1. The new merkle root algorithm described in the MMHF BIP
  2. The nTxsSigops has no meaning currently
  3. Communication with legacy nodes. This version can’t talk to legacy nodes through the P2P network, but theoretically they could be linked up with a bridge node
  4. A new block weight definition to provide incentives for slowing down UTXO growth
  5. Many other interesting hardfork ideas, and softfork ideas that works better with a header redesign
For easier testing, forcenet has the following parameters:
Hardfork at block 200
Segwit is always activated
1 minutes block with 40000 (prefork) and 80000 (postfork) weight limit
50 blocks coinbase maturity
21000 blocks halving
144 blocks retarget
How to join: codes at https://github.com/jl2012/bitcoin/tree/forcenet1 , start with "bitcoind —forcenet" .
Connection: I’m running a node at 8333.info with default port (38901)
Mining: there is only basic internal mining support. Limited GBT support is theoretically possible but needs more hacking. To use the internal miner, writeup a shell script to repeatedly call “bitcoin-cli —forcenet generate 1”
New RPC commands: getlegacyblock and getlegacyblockheader, which generates blocks and headers that are compatible with legacy nodes.
This is largely work-in-progress so expect a reset every couple weeks
jl2012
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 671 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20161205/126aae21/attachment.sig
original: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2016-Decembe013338.html
submitted by dev_list_bot to bitcoin_devlist [link] [comments]

Segwit integration

I've done some work to get segregated witness working for Joinmarket. Here's a summary of the status of that.
Some highlights of what we need to think about:
Transactions can have mixed segwit/non-segwit inputs and outputs, of course. But that raises:
The obvious issue is about different addresses as markers. The first maker bot to use P2SH addresses stands out and has a trivial marker on his outputs and inputs. And let's say all the makers use P2SH - now we have an even worse problem for takers that don't! The obvious solution is: if you're a taker, and you use P2SH (which could be segwit, or could also just be ordinary multisig) in your wallet, then you respond to swrelorder and swabsorder only; that way, all your inputs and outputs are P2SH. One tiny problem: Joinmarket doesn't yet support P2SH inputs! :)
So effectively, today, it becomes a partitioned joinmarket pit: segwit-enabled taker bots join with segwit-enabled maker bots, and the other non-segwit bots just ignore them. I think that works fine, and quite likely there would be a rapid migration, because segwit will be significantly cheaper. But, lots to think about before that :)
If you'd like to help test, you'll need sipa's segwit branch built and then grab some segnet coins, run my segwit branch of joinmarket above, and use the channel mentioned above on freenode.
Lastly, a note on timing: this is a way off! the PR of segwit into Core is apparently fairly imminent, but we are probably looking at some meaningful amount of time before this is available (and of course, it's not required)
This is just a first effort (although it has "cleared" the issue of the underlying bitcoin code). Thoughts welcome on how to proceed, help even more so.
submitted by waxwing to joinmarket [link] [comments]

Bitcoin dev IRC meeting in layman's terms (2016-01-14)

Once again my attempt to summarize and explain the weekly bitcoin developer meeting in layman's terms. Link to last summarisation
Disclaimer
Please bear in mind I'm not a developer so some things might be incorrect or plain wrong. There are no decisions being made in these meetings, but since a fair amount of devs are present it's a good representation. Copyright: Public domain

Logs

Main topics

Versionbits

background

BIP 9 Currently softforks have been done by the isSuperMajority mechanism, meaning when 95% of the last 1000 blocks have a version number higher than X the fork is deployed. A new way of doing this is currently being worked on and that uses all bits of the version number, appropriately being called versionbits. So instead of a fork happening when the version is larger than (for example) 00000000011 (3), a fork happens when (for example) the 3rd bit is up (so 00100000011). This way softforks can be deployed simultaneous and independent of each other.

meeting comments

Morcos is volunteering to take over championing this proposal as CodeShark and Rusty are busy on other things. He'll review both implementations and then decide on which implementation he'll base his work upon. He notes that if non-core implementations are trying to do something else (and are using nVersion for their signaling) while segregated witness is being deployed, not conflicting will be important so users of other versions can also support segregated witness. If there's an agreement with this approach it's necessary that versionbits is ready before the segregated witness deployment. jtimon has some suggestions to make the implementation less complicated and more flexible.

meeting conclusion

Morcos will champion the new reference implementation for BIP9: Versionbits.

Status of segregated witness

background

Segregated witness changes the structure of transactions so that the signatures can be separated from the rest of the transactions. This allows for bandwidth savings for relay, pruning of old signatures, softforking all future script changes by introducing script versions and solves all unintentional forms of malleability. During the last scaling bitcoin conference Pieter Wuille presented a way of doing this via a softfork, and proposed increasing the maximum amount of transactions in a block by discounting signature data towards the total blocksize. Segregated witness is part of the capacity increase roadmap for bitcoin-core. More detailed explanations: - By Pieter Wuille at the San Francisco bitcoin developer meetup (more technical) - By Andreas Antonopoulos in the let's talk bitcoin podcast (less technical)

meeting comments

Segnet, the testnet for segregated transactions, will be going to it's 3rd version soon. Luke-Jr has assigned all the segregated witness BIPs to a 14x range. Currently there are 4 BIPs: 141, 142, 143 and 144.

Status of 0.12 bitcoin-core release

background

Bitcoin Core 0.12 is scheduled for release around February and introduces a lot of fixes and improvements. (release notes) There's a release candidate 0.12rc1 available at https://bitcoin.org/bin/bitcoin-core-0.12.0/test/

meeting comments

Luke-Jr feels PR's #7149, #7339 and #7340 should have been in 0.12, but are now really late and possibly impractical to get in. For gitian builders: 0.12rc1's osx sig attach descriptor fails due to a missing package (that's not actually needed). Rather than using the in-tree descriptor, use the one from #7342. This is fixed for rc2. "fundrawtransaction" and "setban" should be added to the release notes. At some point it makes more sense to document these commands elsewhere and link to it in the release notes, as they've become very lengthy. Wumpus thinks the release notes have too much details, they're not meant to be a substitute for documentation.

meeting conclusion

Close PR #7142 as it's now part of #7148 Everyone is free to improve on the release notes, just submit a PR.

consensus code encapsulation (libconsensus)

background

Satoshi wasn't the best programmer out there, which leaves a pretty messy code. Ideally you'd have the part of the code that influences the network consensus separate, but in bitcoin it's all intertwined. Libconsensus is what eventually should become this part. This way people can more easily make changes in the non-consensus part without fear of causing a network fork. This however is a slow and dangerous project of moving lots of code around.

meeting comments

jtimon has 4 libconsensus related PRs open, namely #7091 #7287 #7311 and #7310 He thinks any "big picture branch" will be highly unreadable without merging something like #7310 first. The longest "big picture branch" he currently has is https://github.com/jtimon/bitcoin/commits/libconsensus-f2 He'll document the plan and "big picture" in stages: 1. have something to call libconsensus: expose verifyScript. (Done) 2. put the rest of the consensus critical code, excluding storage in the same building package (see #7091) 3. discuss a complete C API for libconsensus 4. separate it into a sub-repository Wumpus notes he'd like to start with 3 as soon as possible as an API would be good to guide this.

meeting conclusion

review #7091 #7287 #7311 and #7310

Locktime PRs

background

BIP 68 Consensus-enforced transaction replacement signaled via sequence numbers. BIP 112 CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY. BIP 113 Median time-past as endpoint for lock-time calculations. In short: BIP 68 changes the meaning of the sequence number field to a relative locktime. BIP 112 makes that field accessible to the bitcoin scripting system. BIP 113 enables the usage of GetMedianTimePast (the median of the previous 11 blocks) from the prior block in lock-time transactions.

meeting comments

We need to make a choice between 2 implementations, namely #6312 and #7184. PR #7184 is a result of the CreateNewBlock optimisations not being compatible with #6312. jtimon thinks it could be merged relatively soon as #7184 is based on #6312 which has plenty of testing and review.

meeting conclusion

Close #6312 in favor of #7184. Morcos will fix the open nits on #7184 btcdrak will update the BIP-text

Participants

wumpus Wladimir J. van der Laan btcdrak btcdrak morcos Alex Morcos jtimon Jorge Timón Luke-Jr Luke Dashjr MarcoFalke Marco Falke jonasshnelli Jonas Schnelli cfields Cory Fields sipa Pieter Wuille kanzure Bryan Bishop droark Douglas Roark sdaftuar Suhas Daftuar Diablo-D3 Patrick McFarland 

Comic relief

19:54 wumpus #meetingstop 19:54 wumpus #stopmeeting 19:54 btcdrak haha 19:54 MarcoFalke #closemeeting 19:54 wumpus #endmeeting 19:54 lightningbot` Meeting ended Thu Jan 14 19:54:26 2016 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) 
submitted by G1lius to btc [link] [comments]

BIP141 segwit consensus rule update: extension of witness program definition | Johnson Lau | Jun 08 2016

Johnson Lau on Jun 08 2016:
Please note that the segregated witness (BIP141) consensus rule is updated. Originally, a witness program is a scriptPubKey or redeemScript that consists of a 1-byte push opcode (OP_0 to OP_16) followed by a data push between 2 and 32 bytes. The definition is now extended to 2 to 40 bytes:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/commit/d1b52cb198066d4e515e8a50fc3928c5397c3d9b https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7910/commits/14d4d1d23a3cbaa8a3051d0da10ff7a536517ed0
Why?
BIP141 defines only version 0 witness program: 20 bytes program for P2WPKH and 32 bytes program for P2WSH. Versions 1 to 16 are not defined, and are considered as anyone-can-spend scripts, reserved for future extension (e.g. the proposed BIP114). BIP141 also requires that only a witness program input may have witness data. Therefore, before this update, an 1-byte push opcode followed by a 33 bytes data push was not considered to be a witness program, and no witness data is allowed for that.
This may be over-restrictive for a future witness program softfork. When 32-byte program is used, this leaves only 16 versions for upgrade, and any “sub-version” metadata must be recorded in the witness field. This may not be compatible with some novel hashing functions we are exploring.
By extending the maximum length by 8 bytes, it allows up to 16 * 2 ^ 64 versions for future upgrades, which is enough for any foreseeable use.
Why not make it even bigger, e.g. 75 bytes?
A 40 bytes witness program allows a 32-byte hash with 8-byte metadata. For any scripts that are larger than 32 bytes, they should be recorded in the witness field, like P2WSH in BIP141, to reduce the transaction cost and impact on UTXO set. Since SHA256 is already used everywhere, it is very unlikely that we would require a larger witness program (e.g. SHA512) without also a major revamp of the bitcoin protocol.
In any case, since scripts with a 1-byte push followed by a push of >40 bytes remain anyone-can-spend, we always have the option to redefine them with a softfork.
What are affected?
As defined in BIP141, a version 0 witness program is valid only with 20 bytes (P2WPKH) or 32 bytes (P2WSH). Before this update, an OP_0 followed by a data push of 33-40 bytes was not a witness program and considered as anyone-can-spend. Now, such a script will fail due to incorrect witness program length.
Before this update, no witness data was allowed for a script with a 1-byte push followed by a data push of 33-40 bytes. This is now allowed.
Actions to take:
If you are running a segnet node, or a testnet node with segwit code, please upgrade to the latest version at https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7910
If you have an alternative implementation, please make sure your consensus code is updated accordingly, or your node may fork off the network.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 671 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20160608/cbf69a4f/attachment.sig
original: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2016-June/012747.html
submitted by dev_list_bot to bitcoin_devlist [link] [comments]

Mathetricks für den Alltag - TV total - YouTube AnimeNachrichten - YouTube Testnet & Faucets  Mainnet  Bitcoin - Etherum - Blockchain  Hindi Die Millionenshow - Mathias Stockingers Millionenfrage ... #473 Monero Gebühren fallen, Trading mit Trezor, Krypto ...

Bitcoin Core integration/staging tree. Contribute to bitcoin/bitcoin development by creating an account on GitHub. Testnet ist eine alternative Bitcoin-Blockchain, die zum Testen verwendet wird. Testnet-Münzen unterscheiden sich von den eigentlichen Bitcoins und sollen niemals einen Wert haben. Auf diese Weise können Anwendungsentwickler oder Bitcoin-Tester experimentieren, ohne echte Bitcoins verwenden zu müssen oder sich Sorgen zu machen, die Hauptbitcoin-Kette zu brechen. Run bitcoin-qt or bitcoind with the -testnet flag to use the testnet (or put testnet=1 in the bitcoin.conf file). There have been three generations of testnet. Testnet2 was just the first testnet reset with a different genesis block, because people were starting to trade testnet coins for real money. Testnet3 is the current test network. It was introduced with the 0.7 release, introduced a ... SegNet, like the original Bitcoin testnet, is essentially a clone of Bitcoin, specifically intended as a demo version. Bitcoin Core developers Pieter Wuille, Eric Lombrozo, Johnson Lau, Alex Morcos and several others constructed a set of patches in order to establish the new testnet, with an early iteration of Segregated Witness activated. SegNet was deployed on the December 31, and has been ... Bitcoin is a distributed, worldwide, decentralized digital money. Bitcoins are issued and managed without any central authority whatsoever: there is no government, company, or bank in charge of Bitcoin. You might be interested in Bitcoin if you like cryptography, distributed peer-to-peer systems, or economics. A large percentage of Bitcoin enthusiasts are libertarians, though people of all ...

[index] [8702] [21469] [5676] [36371] [6559] [28404] [12515] [9027] [29064] [7561]

Mathetricks für den Alltag - TV total - YouTube

AnimeNachrichten.de - Dein Anime-Nachrichtendienst mit den neusten und interessantesten News aus der Welt der Animes. Webseite: https://www.animenachrichten.... http://bitcoin-informant.de/2018/10/23/473-monero-gebuehren-fallen-trading-mit-trezor-krypto-big-brother-spanien-bakkt-startet-dezember Hey Krypto Fans, Will... Bitcoin Testnet Sandbox and Faucet brings all the coins to developers and interesting insights of the Testnet Blockchain. The testnet is an alternative Bitcoin block chain, to be used for testing ... Dr. Mittring ist nicht nur ein Mathe-Nerd, sondern weiß auch noch, was man damit im Alltag anfangen kann. Die ganze Folge auf MySpass: https://www.myspass.de... Die Darmstädter Tage der Fotografie sind 2004 aus einer Initiative von Fotografen entstanden. Inzwischen zählt das internationale Festival zu den wichtigen d...

#