Feathercoin daemon and wallet production version 0.19.1
Old daemon and wallet version 0.18.3

[Dev] Segregated witness and BIP 102


  • Moderators | Tip wrapper

    'Lizi & @Bostnickow – Actually that sounds great

    I will read up on it more urgently, (am still failing to compile 9.3.1 on Ubuntu 15.10)

    but our basic policy is to include such in a “Development” version, then try to get some enthusiasm to test it, we have set up test networks for specific features, it seems to me testing a smart contract feature may attract more attention…

    Some of these features are complex, or really need to be on the network to be fully tested, at worst case that need high supervision at best they are backwardly compatible.


  • | Tip lizhi

    0.9.3.2 is a bridge.It is compatible with the new blockchain version. Please upgrade client.


  • | Tip bsotnikow

    Events with ETH have changed my mind on this topic. I don’t think its a good idea to add complications like Segregated witness to the code. Keep the code as simple and secure as possible, focus on being a savings instrument and profitable for miners… It may take longer, but eventually someone will figure out how to create an encrypted bit of software that can create and manage crypto wallets. You’ll probably be able to download them free one day and set up as many smart contracts as you like with whatever crypto you like.


  • Regular Member | Tip ghostlander

    @lizhi Your patch allows to put ANY block version above 2 in new blocks. Like 102938. It defeats the purpose of block versions at all. If someone puts maliciously such a block version in a new block, we have a forked network between all existing wallets and v0.9.3.2.

    https://github.com/FeatherCoin/Feathercoin/commit/911098d4b9124ff01406729efc345a4dbbff6d68

    Don’t upgrade to v0.9.3.2 unless you’re ready for a trouble.


  • Moderators | Tip wrapper

    We’re going to test some interface changes and do some help for the new features in 0.9.3.2.

    It would be possible to make a intermediate release “0.9.3.3” with just the UI and minimum - fixes –

    Then I’ll move onto into 0.1x.x series, and transfer those in and seeing if I can add some help and sharpen the new forms further. (any assistence accepted)

    I’m assuming we can still make that branch compatible, while we create a tidy release of that.

    https://github.com/wrapperband/Feathercoin/tree/0.9.3.2/doc


  • Moderators | Tip Wellenreiter

    @ghostlander said:

    @lizhi Your patch allows to put ANY block version above 2 in new blocks. Like 102938. It defeats the purpose of block versions at all. If someone puts maliciously such a block version in a new block, we have a forked network between all existing wallets and v0.9.3.2.

    https://github.com/FeatherCoin/Feathercoin/commit/911098d4b9124ff01406729efc345a4dbbff6d68

    Don’t upgrade to v0.9.3.2 unless you’re ready for a trouble.

    @lizhi
    @ghostlamder

    Do we need to accept block version 3 in 0.9.3.2?

    It is an easy fix to accept block version 2 and 4 or 2,3.4 only


  • Regular Member | Tip ghostlander

    @Wellenreiter We can accept any block version if it’s labelled 2. Otherwise it needs a hard fork.


  • | Tip lizhi

    I think 0.9.3.2 is selection of transition. It accept V2 and V4 , and create V2 only. then 0.11 create V4.
    last reject Version=2 blocks when 95% of the network has upgraded.

    https://github.com/FeatherCoin/Feathercoin/commit/1e2cc219d6ed147ff80a5b1fa2200d661a2e4c7c


  • Regular Member | Tip ghostlander

    @lizhi If it accepts both, someone may create a v4 block and fork the network.


  • Moderators | Tip wrapper

    @Lizhi and @ghostlander

    Couldn’t they both remain on v2 untill 95% network is v 0.11 it then auto forks to v4 ?

    Then last 5 % then just need to change over.


  • Regular Member | Tip ghostlander

    @wrapper There is no way to know 95% of the network is v0.11 unless it produces somewhat different coin base.


  • Moderators | Tip wrapper

    The only way is if Lizhi is intimating that version v4 and v2 could coexist (For example they are called v4 but act as v2 untill 95%)

    It would help as we could move onto testing and updating the other feature of 0.11 before the fork.


  • Moderators | Tip Wellenreiter

    I think, we need a set of at triggers to change to block version 4.

    1. majority (> 80%? > 95%?) of nodes is capable to at least accept Block Version 4

      • Wallets could place a comment like ‘block v4’ in the BC with each transaction if they can read V4 blocks. As not many comments -if any- are manually placed in the BC this should work
        *when receiving a block clients check for that comment
      • when >xx% of blocks during a given time frame - at least 48 or 72 hours, mey be longer - meet the requirement the trigger is met.
    2. We define a block about 6 month in the future to trigger the switch to V4 as we did with the Neoscrypt switch and announce that block number and expected date/time to the community

    3. … ??

    If you think we need other or additional triggers please comment/add…

    We must make sure, that only V2 blocks are generated in the production chain until all triggers are met.
    All testing must be done in the Testnet, especially the switch over must be tested upfront.
    We can simulate this by using a mixture of 0.8.7, 0.9.3.1 and >= 0.9.3.2 clients in the testnet, starting with a majority of <0.9.3.2 and increasing the percentage of ‘V4 capable’ clients gradually until the trigger is met.

    In parallel we could run manual checks on the seed node and the explorer to determine the client versions, but this is no guarantee, so it only can be an additional check.

    I don’t like to pull any 0.11.x version to the master before we have a clear plan how we approach the switch.


  • | Tip lizhi

    I think 0.9.3.2 accept block 2 and block 4 , but mine block 2 only . 0.11 mine block 4 only. so 0.9.3.2 is a bridge. When the main pool is installed, we will broadcast the V4.


  • Regular Member | Tip ghostlander

    @lizhi It isn’t going to work.


  • Moderators | Tip Wellenreiter

    @ghostlander You are right, we can’t switch to block version 4 based on the wallet versions only.

    The idea is to use the time, until 0.11.X is ready to upgrade as many clients as possible to a version, that accepts blocks with version 4.
    In an ideal world we would have 100% of 0.9.3.2 clients in the network, then define a block to switch over in the 0.11.X version and have to deal with the mining clients only, which of course must be upated to 0.11.x before the switch.
    Any non-mining clients remaining on 0.9.3.2 then would not cause any harm and experience no change at all.


  • Moderators | Tip wrapper

    Which Altcoins Are Implementing SegWit?

    SegregatedWitness (SegWit) — the proposed upgrade to the Bitcoin protocol developed by the Bitcoin Core developers — is still far from activation. Requiring 95 percent of hash power to signal support for the solution, miner-adoption has seemingly stagnated at around 25 percent for now.

    But, of course, SegWit’s open source code is out there. As such, altcoins based on Bitcoin’s codebase can take the code and implement the solution. Indeed, at least two altcoins are adopting SegWit: Litecoin and Viacoin …

    https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/which-altcoins-are-implementing-segwit-1481577969


  • Moderators | Tip Wellenreiter

    We clearly need a similar trigger as Bitcoin to implement BIP 102.
    I’d set the level above 90% better 95%.

    An alternate solution could be to advertize an upgrade to a new Version of code and announce the switch to BIP 102 for a given block number,like we did for the Neoscrypt fork


  • Moderators | Tip wrapper

    Looks like most coins are taking 75%. Looks like @Lizhi was right in one front, FTC might have got good publicity if we had gone first. Not so much if we did a Vertcoin!

    Not Just Bitcoin: Top 6 Altcoins Supporting Segregated Witness
    http://cwt.top/en/news/2131/not-just-bitcoin-top-6-altcoins-supporting-segregated-witness


  • | Tip SimonTower

    @wrapper Yeah, some attention and publicity would be awesome until this Segwit hype is going on.


Log in to reply