BIP149 timeout-- why so far in the future?

Based on how fast we saw segwit adoption, why is the BIP149 timeout so far in the future?

It seems to me that it could be six months after release and hit the kind of density required to make a stable transition.

(If it were a different proposal and not segwit where we already have seen what network penetration looks like-- that would be another matter.)

Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation•org> writes:

> Based on how fast we saw segwit adoption, why is the BIP149 timeout so
> far in the future?
>
> It seems to me that it could be six months after release and hit the
> kind of density required to make a stable transition.

Agreed, I would suggest 16th December, 2017 (otherwise, it should be 16th January 2018; during EOY holidays seems a bad idea).

This means this whole debacle has delayed segwit exactly 1 (2) month(s) beyond what we'd have if it used BIP8 in the first place.

Cheers, Rusty.

I agree the date can be brought forward. FWIW, I originally set the date far out enough that people wouldn't immediately fixate on the date and rather look at the meat of the proposal instead.

Given that we saw around 70% of nodes upgrade to BIP141 in around 5/6 months, I dont see any reason why we cant reduce the date to being 6 months or less from Nov. Given people are starving for segwit to the point of running BIP148, there is good evidence the community will upgrade in record time to BIP149.

Sent from [ProtonMail](https://protonmail.com), Swiss-based encrypted email.

-------- Original Message --------

Based on how fast we saw segwit adoption, why is the BIP149 timeout so far in the future?

It seems to me that it could be six months after release and hit the kind of density required to make a stable transition.

(If it were a different proposal and not segwit where we already have seen what network penetration looks like-- that would be another matter.)

A more important consideration than segwit's timeout is when code can be released, which will no doubt be several months after SegWit's current timeout.

Greg's proposed 6 months seems much more reasonable to me, assuming its still many months after the formal release of code implementing it.

Matt

On 05/24/17 04:26, Rusty Russell via bitcoin-dev wrote:

> Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation•org>
> writes:
>> Based on how fast we saw segwit adoption, why is the BIP149 timeout so
>> far in the future?
>>
>> It seems to me that it could be six months after release and hit the
>> kind of density required to make a stable transition.
>
> Agreed, I would suggest 16th December, 2017 (otherwise, it should be
> 16th January 2018; during EOY holidays seems a bad idea).
>
> This means this whole debacle has delayed segwit exactly 1 (2) month(s)
> beyond what we'd have if it used BIP8 in the first place.
>
> Cheers,
> Rusty.
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation•org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>

Matt Corallo <lf-lists@mattcorallo•com> writes:

> A more important consideration than segwit's timeout is when code can be
> released, which will no doubt be several months after SegWit's current
> timeout.

I was assuming it would be included in the next point release.

Cheers, Rusty.

Is there any reason that BIP149 activation on November 16th would cause a problem?

The current proposal assumes that bip149 would only be merged and released after nov15, so there's not time in one day.

My preference would be a bip149 proposal that could be merged and released now, but some people complain that would require more testing, because if you deploy bip149 and then sw gets activated pre nov15, then you want bip149 nodes to use the old service bit for segwit, not the new one (you would use that one if it activates post nov15, so that pre-bip149 nodes don't get confused).

I was slowly modifying shaolinfry's code to try to code that, but I'm currently not working on it because there doesn't seem there's a lot of interest in releasing bip149 before nov15...

https://github.com/jtimon/bitcoin/commits/b15-shaolinfry-bip149

On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 7:48 AM, Ryan Grant via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation•org> wrote:

> Is there any reason that BIP149 activation on November 16th would
> cause a problem?
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation•org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev