<oembed><type>rich</type><version>1.0</version><author_name>npub1e46n428mcyfwznl7nlsf6d3s7rhlwm9x3cmkuqzt3emmdpadmkaqqjxmcu</author_name><author_url>https://nostr.ae/npub1e46n428mcyfwznl7nlsf6d3s7rhlwm9x3cmkuqzt3emmdpadmkaqqjxmcu</author_url><provider_name>njump</provider_name><provider_url>https://nostr.ae</provider_url><html>📅 Original date posted:2017-07-07&#xA;📝 Original message:This is horribly under-specified (ie not possible to implement from what&#xA;you&#39;ve written, and your implementation doesn&#39;t match at all, last I heard).&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Specification&#xA;&#xA;&gt; The plain block size is defined as the serialized block size without&#xA;&gt; witness programs.&#xA;&gt; Deploy a modified BIP91 to activate Segwit. The only modification is&#xA;&gt; that the signal &#34;segsignal&#34; is replaced by &#34;segwit2x&#34;.&#xA;&#xA;This is not a protocol change. I have no idea why you included it in the&#xA;&#34;specification&#34; section.&#xA;&#xA;&gt; If segwit2x (BIP91 signal) activates at block N, then block N+12960&#xA;&gt; activates a new plain block size limit of 2 MB (2,000,000 bytes). In&#xA;&gt; this case, at block N+12960 a hard-fork occurs.&#xA;&#xA;This is not a hard fork, simply adding a new limit is a soft fork. You&#xA;appear to be confused - as originally written, AFAIR, Jeff&#39;s btc1 branch&#xA;did not increase the block size, your specification here matches that&#xA;original change, and does not increase the block size.&#xA;&#xA;&gt; The block that activates the hard-fork must have a plain block size&#xA;&gt; greater than 1 MB.&#xA;&#xA;There is no hard fork, and this would violate consensus rules. Not sure&#xA;what you mean. If you do add a hard fork to this BIP, you really need to&#xA;flip the hard fork bit.&#xA;&#xA;&gt; Any transaction with a non-witness serialized size exceeding 1,000,000&#xA;&gt; is invalid.&#xA;&#xA;This is far from sufficient to protect from DoS attacks, you really&#xA;should take a look through the mailing list archives and read some of&#xA;the old discussions on the issues here.&#xA;&#xA;Matt&#xA;&#xA;On 07/07/17 18:25, Sergio Demian Lerner via bitcoin-dev wrote:&#xA;&gt; Hello,&#xA;&gt; &#xA;&gt; Here is a BIP that matches the reference code that the Segwit2x group&#xA;&gt; has built and published a week ago. &#xA;&gt; &#xA;&gt; This BIP and code satisfies the requests of a large part of the Bitcoin&#xA;&gt; community for a moderate increase in the Bitcoin non-witness block space&#xA;&gt; coupled with the activation of Segwit.&#xA;&gt; &#xA;&gt; You can find the BIP draft in the following link:&#xA;&gt; &#xA;&gt; https://github.com/SergioDemianLerner/BIPs/blob/master/BIP-draft-sergiolerner-segwit2x.mediawiki&#xA;&gt; &#xA;&gt; Reference source was kindly provided by the Segwit2x group.&#xA;&gt; &#xA;&gt; Best regards,&#xA;&gt;  Sergio.&#xA;&gt; &#xA;&gt; &#xA;&gt; _______________________________________________&#xA;&gt; bitcoin-dev mailing list&#xA;&gt; bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org&#xA;&gt; https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev&#xA;&gt;</html></oembed>