<p>As <a href="https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/BIP_0016" rel="nofollow">mentioned in BIP0016</a>, this proposal will cause a dangerous-to-the-network blockchain split in the following case:</p>

<ul>
<li>"A pay-to-script-hash transaction that is invalid for new clients/miners but valid for old clients/miners."</li>
</ul>

<p>Therefore, at least 51% of the miners (and probably more to be really safe) must confirm that they are aware of this problem and promise to upgrade their software very quickly after any new client is released that implements the proposal (again, if the proposal is accepted).</p>

<p>In this context, <strong>abstaining technically ought to be interpreted as "I vote NO to p2sh but I may change my vote to yes later"</strong> since p2sh is only safe once 51% of the miners have indicated their agreement with it.  Simply failing to indicate disagreement has to -- at least temporarily -- count as a "no" vote in order for this election to achieve the intended purpose.</p>

<p>The voting technically won't begin for another day, but I think the low turnout so far is certainly telling.  It's not like there's any penalty for a pool starting its votes early, and since changes like this require testing there <strong><em>is</em></strong> a risk to waiting until the very last minute to start encoding votes.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-01-23T22:54:23.237Z
2012-01-24T04:15:52.670Z
2012-01-24T04:15:52.670Z
lamont cranston
<p>As mentioned in <a href="https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/BIP_0016" rel="nofollow">BIP 0016</a>, voting will take place at the end of januari 2012. votes you see now (januari 24th) are from pools who have already upgraded their software to vote either for or against. There are some pools who have said they will upgrade, but haven't done so yet.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-01-24T00:54:42.843Z
2012-01-24T00:54:42.843Z
Pieter Wuille
<p>The big set-back is that the original P2SH proposal (BIP 12 aka OP_EVAL) was Withdrawn by its author, Gavin. In its place, he proposed a new, much inferior system that is broken by design. Despite a sanitized P2SH being proposed in BIP 17, however, he continues to promote and push for the broken BIP 16. Hopefully once BIP 16's voting date has come and gone, he and those who follow his command will adopt BIP 17 (or propose something even better?).</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-01-29T07:49:51.513Z
Currently support for BIP 16 seems to about twice as large as support for BIP 17. It won't make the Feb 1 deadline, but the deadline can be postponed. I think the largest reason people (e.g. Tycho) don't commit to any of the proposals is that they fear it's rushed ... all of which can be fixed if the voting is postponed by a month or two.
ripper234
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-01-29T09:46:11.400Z
Luke, I am grateful for the technical effort you have put into Bitcoin, but with utmost respect, you need to work on the tone of the way you promote BIP 17. Gavin has been open, _self-critical_, and intellectually honest. Statements like "broken by design" do him a disservice. I suspect most of his supporters don't understand the technical details, but follow him simply because of his more reasonable attitude. Please, stick to technical analysis of the proposals and don't turn this into a personality clash drama.
jl6
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-01-29T07:32:52.153Z
2012-01-29T07:32:52.153Z
Luke Dashjr
<p><a href="http://blockchain.info/p2sh" rel="nofollow">Link</a> (via <a href="http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/ordvk/p2sh_voting_starts_soon_miners_be_sure_to_know/" rel="nofollow">reddit</a>)</p>

<p>Currently the <em>vast</em> majority of miners just don't vote. Was there a mistake made in organizing the voting process (maybe most miners haven't heard about this vote?), or perhaps most miners really don't like either proposals?</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-01-23T09:56:42.623Z
Well I for one had no idea I could vote. Or how to do so. I'm guessing that because I'm mining in a pool that I forfeit my vote to the pool owner?
Sean Chapman
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-01-23T12:16:21.203Z
@SeanChapman - yeah, the pool owners decide how to vote. To vote for yourself, either solo mine or join P2Pool.
ripper234
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-01-23T12:24:40.510Z
I was going to set up P2Pool but don't I have to solve a full block before my vote is actually "cast"?
Sean Chapman
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-01-23T12:30:03.537Z
@SeanChapman - that is true - the miner that actually solves the block will decide what to vote.
ripper234
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-01-23T18:55:32.543Z
Most miners sell their vote to their pool operators for very little in return.
Holliday
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-01-24T10:11:02.980Z
Well I think I have an incredibly slim chance of solving a block so I think I'll give my hashing power to a pool that is voting the same way I want to vote
Sean Chapman
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-01-24T11:57:41.967Z
@SeanChapman - why not P2Pool?
ripper234
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-01-24T12:19:16.370Z
Well if I use P2Pool I'll likely never solve a block in time to have my vote broadcast (my hash power is about 517MHash), so I may as well contribute to a pool who's voting the same way I am, unless I'm misunderstanding how voting would work with p2pool
Sean Chapman
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-01-24T12:28:35.440Z
@SeanChapman - your expected contribution to the vote stays the same anyway, and switching to P2Pool is a good idea in general. You get a small bonus, instead of a fee, and contribute to decentralizing Bitcoin.
ripper234
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-01-24T13:16:05.950Z
@ripper234 that's a good point but it *feels* as if I'm not contributing I suppose
Sean Chapman
<p2sh><bip>
Why are the majority of miners not voting on on P2SH?
ripper234
# Why are the majority of miners not voting on on P2SH?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2012-01-23)

[Link](http://blockchain.info/p2sh) (via [reddit](http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/ordvk/p2sh_voting_starts_soon_miners_be_sure_to_know/))

Currently the *vast* majority of miners just don't vote. Was there a mistake made in organizing the voting process (maybe most miners haven't heard about this vote?), or perhaps most miners really don't like either proposals?

**Tags:** p2sh, bip

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Well I for one had no idea I could vote. Or how to do so. I'm guessing that because I'm mining in a pool that I forfeit my vote to the pool owner?  
> **username_0**: @username_1 - yeah, the pool owners decide how to vote. To vote for yourself, either solo mine or join P2Pool.  
> **username_1**: I was going to set up P2Pool but don't I have to solve a full block before my vote is actually "cast"?  
> **username_0**: @username_1 - that is true - the miner that actually solves the block will decide what to vote.  
> **username_2**: Most miners sell their vote to their pool operators for very little in return.  
> **username_1**: Well I think I have an incredibly slim chance of solving a block so I think I'll give my hashing power to a pool that is voting the same way I want to vote  
> **username_0**: @username_1 - why not P2Pool?  
> **username_1**: Well if I use P2Pool I'll likely never solve a block in time to have my vote broadcast (my hash power is about 517MHash), so I may as well contribute to a pool who's voting the same way I am, unless I'm misunderstanding how voting would work with p2pool  
> **username_0**: @username_1 - your expected contribution to the vote stays the same anyway, and switching to P2Pool is a good idea in general. You get a small bonus, instead of a fee, and contribute to decentralizing Bitcoin.  
> **username_1**: @username_0 that's a good point but it *feels* as if I'm not contributing I suppose  

---

## 3 answers

### Answer by username_3 on 2012-01-23. Score: 4

As [mentioned in BIP0016](https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/BIP_0016), this proposal will cause a dangerous-to-the-network blockchain split in the following case:

* "A pay-to-script-hash transaction that is invalid for new clients/miners but valid for old clients/miners."

Therefore, at least 51% of the miners (and probably more to be really safe) must confirm that they are aware of this problem and promise to upgrade their software very quickly after any new client is released that implements the proposal (again, if the proposal is accepted).

In this context, **abstaining technically ought to be interpreted as "I vote NO to p2sh but I may change my vote to yes later"** since p2sh is only safe once 51% of the miners have indicated their agreement with it. Simply failing to indicate disagreement has to -- at least temporarily -- count as a "no" vote in order for this election to achieve the intended purpose.

The voting technically won't begin for another day, but I think the low turnout so far is certainly telling. It's not like there's any penalty for a pool starting its votes early, and since changes like this require testing there ***is*** a risk to waiting until the very last minute to start encoding votes.


---

### Answer by username_4 on 2012-01-24. Score: 0

As mentioned in [BIP 0016](https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/BIP_0016), voting will take place at the end of januari 2012. votes you see now (januari 24th) are from pools who have already upgraded their software to vote either for or against. There are some pools who have said they will upgrade, but haven't done so yet.


---

### Answer by username_5 on 2012-01-29. Score: -3

The big set-back is that the original P2SH proposal (BIP 12 aka OP\_EVAL) was Withdrawn by its author, Gavin. In its place, he proposed a new, much inferior system that is broken by design. Despite a sanitized P2SH being proposed in BIP 17, however, he continues to promote and push for the broken BIP 16. Hopefully once BIP 16's voting date has come and gone, he and those who follow his command will adopt BIP 17 (or propose something even better?).

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Currently support for BIP 16 seems to about twice as large as support for BIP 17. It won't make the Feb 1 deadline, but the deadline can be postponed. I think the largest reason people (e.g. Tycho) don't commit to any of the proposals is that they fear it's rushed ... all of which can be fixed if the voting is postponed by a month or two.  
> **username_6**: username_5, I am grateful for the technical effort you have put into Bitcoin, but with utmost respect, you need to work on the tone of the way you promote BIP 17. Gavin has been open, _self-critical_, and intellectually honest. Statements like "broken by design" do him a disservice. I suspect most of his supporters don't understand the technical details, but follow him simply because of his more reasonable attitude. Please, stick to technical analysis of the proposals and don't turn this into a personality clash drama.  

---

