Topic: Deadlines and moving forward (BIP 16/17 support) (Read 8961 times)

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/BIP_0016_QA

This is basically a miner-only change.

BIP 17 has had plenty of mainnet testing.

We mean different things by "implementation". BIP 16 and 17 are already implemented. I think you mean deployment.


You can test it yourself until you feel is enough.


Why do you need heavy computing power for the tests?

On testnet perhaps ?

Gavin said he's already done some testing on testnet, but the question is if that was enough.

Perhaps people with considerate mining power should do some more heavy testing.

How do you test something before implementing it?

Y'all make it sound like BIP 16 is gonna melt down or something. A short holiday for the exchanges should mitigate any real threat that a small bug might cause. It's a beta release, after all. Don't panic.

+1 to that.
Let's go slow, and do a lot of testing before implementing something that breaks backward compatibility.

It is people's money that is at stake here, so there is no place for "we feel" this is good.You must KNOW that something is good and well tested before implementing it.

+1 agree, as a side note the solidcoin resemblance of doing things is quite striking

My opinion on this controversial and purely technical issue.
We need transactions with multiple signatures. It will add more security and use cases. It seems that the better technical solution is p2sh.
But I don't see any important differences between BIP 16 and 17. Not that I've looked into this deeply.
I prefer 17 but my decision is more based in "aesthetics" than in a strong argument so I don't have nothing against 16. Not that luke-jr is a saint of my devotion. I didn't like how he managed his disagreement.


I didn't. However he may had his reasons. I imagine his mail full of crap.

Interesting Thread. I find many perspectives very beneficial.

I'm very optimistic for the future of Bitcoin even with these sometimes undesired (but necessary) debates that could easily turn into mud slinging.
kudos to all that that have kept their cool and have genuinely sought the best actions for the future improvements.
Hope Luke and Gavin can find common ground in other areas of future Bitcoin improvements and move forward.

Based on Developer votes, BIP 16 looks like the leader so that is what I will support as a non developer.
As much as Luke dislikes BIP 16, I would hope he could endure whatever it is he finds objectionable and help make BIP 16 successful.

I really appreciated the thread Gavin started called "BIP 16/17 in laymen's terms"
Would someone please consider starting a thread that describes in laymen terms all the steps required to migrate the bitcoin community to a BIP 16 improved client?
I don't want to be left in the Dark - it would make me feel powerless to wake up one day and be told bitcoin is already bip 16 ready. In other words, where do I fit in as a non developer for this migration?

My other major concern is that BIP 16 has not been adequately tested. What is the game plan to put BIP 16 technology into action before the migration? It would be nice to experience its use for a period of time and know that many more programmers and developers had examined/improved the code.
It would be a huge black eye for a few core developers to rush a migration on something they "feel" is ready for prime time only to be followed with "let's revert back" and/or "here's an emergency fix" followed by "here's yet another emergency fix". Solidcoin anyone?

I'm more than willing to donate hashing power on a temporary bitcoin fork for testing purposes.

In theory, what you say looks "ok". However, in practice, things are a bit different.
You are drawing a thin line between 'democracy' and 'dictatorship', thus the 'technocratic' loses its importance.

I do agree with what you said about the public debates, though. And I believe that, more than doubt, it can shift the voting based on something other than the technical issues:

This has moved from a pure decision between BIPs to a 'quarrel in the arena' between Luke and Gavin. I realized that when one day I woke up and just saw Luke campaigning in #p2pool.

And what happens then is that people will make decisions based on their personalities more than on the 'quality' of their technical arguments.
I can clearly see thoughts like "I don't know Candidate number 2, but I know Candidate number 1 is a fanatical religious zealot, so I'm voting for 2". (*1)
Albeit inevitable, certainly not good for Bitcoin as a whole.


(*1) Just a fictional example. Or maybe not.

As far as I understand, we need to count the vote of the non-voting miners, because we need the support of the miners for PS2H to work. That's why we're waiting for over 50% to actively proclaim that they support PS2H transactions, and that they will be including them in blocks when these transactions start to appear.

LOL! As long as those representatives are not "East-coast Educated Elites™" and are good at "sitting down to have a beer with" 
Because economics and finances that involve complicated mumbo jumbo are just liberal lies in disguise, and not good, down-to-earth, Reagan-style, Amuhrican economics 

Thats a great Idea!

People that dont Vote dont care, are not infomrmed, so they dont count. People that did make a desicition sure did think a while about it. But we need more than the currrent 2 Options:

Vote Pro BIP16
Vote Pro BIP17
Vote None Yet

All other Blocks without vote dont count.

But theres a Problem too, if to manny miners dont care for the Wnner of the Vote, a Win of the Votingprocess didnt help

But Votingprocess is much faster

Ill throw in my 2 cents, even if Im too late

In a democracy, on most complex financial/economic/political/etc issues, ordinary voters "are not qualified" either. But they do vote, as they should; they vote representatives who are supposed to know these issues better. I think the same goes here, I may not understand all the technical ins and outs of BIP16, but I know what its about and to put it very simple, to me it boils down to, do I trust Gavins judgment above Lukes?
I think thats actually quite a reasonable approach to follow. You can decide to put faith in a pool op, or actively decide which pool you will join that supports you POV. Its almost like political parties .

To continue my parallel with democracy; non voters dont get counted. I dont see why we should count them here (unless maybe there was a way to vote "undecided"). This process is new, so we should give it some time otherwise  it may cause a bit of a panic initially, but if you make votes binding and ignore the non voters, Im sure quickly miners and pools will get more involved and more interested in whats going on to make sure they cast the right votes. If they dont, their votes are simply ignored, i see no reason to allow non voters to halt the development of bitcoin.

We successfully migrated to git snapshot of bitcoin-0.5.1 with P2SH/CHV patches today.

Waiting for block...

+1

This is great news.

BTC Guild blocks will be containing BIP 16 support, hopefully between February 10 and 12.

Bitcoin.cz is slush's pool.

+1

That vote seems to indicate a strong preference for BIP16. Now it's up to the miners to do what is right, as far as I know slush is still supporting BIP16 right? Don't forget to add his pool to your signature.