BIP 16 / 17 in layman's terms

[Andrew Vorobyov]

I'm so sorry for my English...

People in order of importance who can spot problems in Bitcoin development direction...

[FreeMoney]

If the miners refuse to switch it doesn't work. The devs can't force anything.

But this would pave light way to transition... If transition itself being questionable enough - miners can reject it... Only after this regular users will need to decide.


Small details what matters... People in order of importance

1st - developers
2nd - miners (poolops)
3rd - users

It will eliminate friction from the process...

Sure, everyone is important in different ways.

The 50%+ only applies to miners though, if one dev out of 1000 convinces the miners the change is good it happens. And as long as there are some users who continue using it then the changes protocol continues to exist as a real/used thing.

[Andrew Vorobyov]

this is why 1 developer can = 50% of miners

[phelix]

Here's what I've gathered from this thread:


Tycho/Deepbit - concerned about rushing such a big change, concerned about wielding decision power over such a big change

Gavin - concerned about wallet security and allowing bitcoin to move to the next level

Luke - concerned about wallet security and allowing bitcoin to move to the next level


All parties care about having a stable and successful future for bitcoin, and we should not forget that.  I think Tycho/Deepbit's refusal to get behind one of these proposals is quite possibly the wisest move in this whole ordeal and is under appreciated.  What it does is put this incredibly hot bitcoin drama on ice and buys more time for the engineers to debate and the community to form some sort of consensus, which is crucial for something this big.

Slow and steady wins the race (and usually results in it being done right the first time).

+1

[BrightAnarchist]

For this reason, I think it would be very advisable for everyone to upgrade their clients when either BIP-16 or BIP-17 get adopted.

I think the concern is that this is not likely to happen. I saw a figure somewhere that 70% of clients are running a version lower than 0.5.

What about a staged update like when the default fee changed 0.3.22/23?

I don't like to upgrade. I really appreciate the work that goes into new features and versions, but sometimes things go wrong and I want to stay months behind. I certainly see the value in the improvements being discussed, but what I need is working and my main priority is keeping it that way.

+1

Financial software is a different world from most. "If it ain't broke don't fix it" is the rule of the land in that arena, and with very good reason.

[cbeast]

Bitcoin is not a multimillion dollar enterprise, yet. In fact, isn't worth much at all if there isn't major development done to improve the network to allow for explosive growth. While I do have a lot to lose if Bitcoin fails, I am not afraid of risk and the rewards are worth the investment. I have a lot of faith in the bitcoin community. Pick a BIP and let's roll.

[DiThi]

Sorry, I can't resist to post this...

Pick a BIP and let's roll.

Agree!

[owowo]

Would this make it easier to lose coins from human error?

I agree that would increese the danger of loosing coins by loosing the keys stored on the 2nd device. One would need to run two programs and some ppl would end up storing both on the same device (if it would be possible to do) negating the security.

[DiThi]

I agree that would increese the danger of loosing coins by loosing the keys stored on the 2nd device. One would need to run two programs and some ppl would end up storing both on the same device (if it would be possible to do) negating the security.

I bet most people will use 2-of-3 signatures: One in your PC, one in your phone and a paper backup, kept in a safe or something. If one of the devices get lost or broken, you use the other and the backup to move the funds to a new multisig address. Or you can use 2-of-4 and have two paper backups, one of them to be stored in a new device if one is lost (or using both backups if both devices are broken/lost, which is about the same of having only 2 signatures and a backup of both...).

[Dusty]

Fascinating thread.

I'm not a bitcoin developer but I'm a sw developer with some years experience and I found very, very useful this article by genjix:
http://bitcoinmedia.com/the-truth-behind-bip-16-and-17/

By not knowing completely the bitcoin protocol, when I began reading the objections of Luke to Gavin I was unconsciously taking Gavin side because I have a lot of trust in him.
But after studying genhix work (who takes no sides, I think) I'm now leaning towards BIP17: it seems a better choice from a general software good development practice.

[interlagos]

Fascinating thread.

I'm not a bitcoin developer but I'm a sw developer with some years experience and I found very, very useful this article by genjix:
http://bitcoinmedia.com/the-truth-behind-bip-16-and-17/

By not knowing completely the bitcoin protocol, when I began reading the objections of Luke to Gavin I was unconsciously taking Gavin side because I have a lot of trust in him.
But after studying genhix work (who takes no sides, I think) I'm now leaning towards BIP17: it seems a better choice from a general software good development practice.

+1
I liked the article too, thanks genjix!
Though I've been flipping sides on BIP16 / BIP17 for awhile and still undecided.

[mila]

did you notice deepbit pool voted with 1 block so far?
http://blockchain.info/p2sh

I missed the info however that he [Tycho] chosed a side in the 16 vs 17 poll.
was this 1 block / vote an accident or just saying "I'm watching you, here's my .5 % of voting capacity"

[[Tycho]]

did you notice deepbit pool voted with 1 block so far?
http://blockchain.info/p2sh

I missed the info however that he [Tycho] chosed a side in the 16 vs 17 poll.
was this 1 block / vote an accident or just saying "I'm watching you, here's my .5 % of voting capacity"

No, I didn't.
It's a false positive, possibly caused by my node relaying someone else's new block.

I wouldn't choose a side because I don't like both.

[Andrew Vorobyov]

Tycho, are you waiting for 50%+ of hashing power to confirm to activate any of the BIPs?

[[Tycho]]

Tycho, are you waiting for 50%+ of hashing power to confirm to activate any of the BIPs?

At this moment I decided to start working on implementing BIP16 when 50% of OTHER (not total) miners "vote" for it.
This may be changed if some new scary bugs are found or other important info becomes available.

I don't like the "special case" magic and serialized script form in BIP16, but if most people want it (or lured by Gavin), then I'll let it be.
As I said before, I'm not going to oppose the majority.

[Gavin Andresen]

I've started a discussion on BIP 16/17 support moving forward (including trying to improve the testing process) here:
  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=61922.0

(please reply there so the discussion stays mostly in one place)

[fivemileshigh]

Newb here:

There's a question that hasn't been answered, afaik: to what extent are BIP16 or BIP17 backward compatibile?

If I have some savings in a paper wallet, will I be able to spend them after the change?

After the change, can I opt out of having to use multiple private key confirmations? Can I use my present wallet on 0.5.2 unhindered?

Can I receive btc from a bip16/17 client on my 0.5.2 client?

Frankly, I think the proposed way of doing things is potentially more trouble than it is worth. With a bit of computer literacy, the present client is plenty secure and reliable.

Thoughts?

[casascius]

Newb here:

There's a question that hasn't been answered, afaik: to what extent are BIP16 or BIP17 backward compatibile?

If I have some savings in a paper wallet, will I be able to spend them after the change?

BIP16 and BIP17 don't invalidate existing bitcoins.  If you have savings in a wallet, paper or not, you will absolutely be able to spend them.

After the change, can I opt out of having to use multiple private key confirmations? Can I use my present wallet on 0.5.2 unhindered?

Can I receive btc from a bip16/17 client on my 0.5.2 client?

Absolutely you can choose not to use multiple private keys.  I would think it's something you have to opt in to.

You should be able to use your present wallet but would probably be required to upgrade your client.

Frankly, I think the proposed way of doing things is potentially more trouble than it is worth. With a bit of computer literacy, the present client is plenty secure and reliable.

Thoughts?

I don't think computer literacy is quite the right term - to me, this means familiarity with e-mail and surfing the web, using a word processor and a spreadsheet.  I consider myself a computer expert, and of course I can make do with the current client.  I am sure you are referring to the ability to keep one's computer secure, not just use a spreadsheet, so I'll assume you mean expert.

The problem is that computer expertise is a very high prerequisite to use a currency, and even computer experts get malware and hacked all the time, often without even knowing it.  I think it is a foregone conclusion that we need multisig to counter this.

[Gavin Andresen]

You should be able to use your present wallet but would probably be required to upgrade your client.

No, you don't have to upgrade your client to receive coins from somebody using a BIP 16 multisignature wallet.

[allten]

This thread has been great. It appears that too many are trying to avoid the inevitable - that is, the forking of the bitcoin chain. When there's difference in opinion, well fork that chain please!

Gavin mentioned that the number 1 road block to alternate crypto-currencies being more successful was that of infrastructure (i.e. exchanges, block explorers, etc.).

It's my opinion that we should not be scared of competing currencies (also bitcoin forks) and that we should embrace it and hope for it.
Bitcoin is not just about decentralization, it is also about freedom. If we embrace freedom, this project will excel faster than anyone can imagine IMHO. Many of the fears for going this route stem from selfishness and greed, but also consider that there might be many newcomers to this technology that would not have done so otherwise.

So, the challenge would be to make bitcoin more fork friendly at all levels (exchanges, mining pools, clients, etc). That would be the first great step in Bitcoin's improvement and then all the other potentially great ideas out there would come into these crypto currencies at a much faster pace and I'd bet you would all be more the wealthier. Also, the  BIP 16 vs BIP 17 would quickly become a non-issue in my opionion.