Ryan Grant [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2021-03-05 📝 Original message:On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at ...
📅 Original date posted:2021-03-05
📝 Original message:On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 7:32 PM Keagan McClelland via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> So that leads me to believe here that the folks who oppose LOT=true
> primarily have an issue with forced signaling, which personally I
> don't care about as much, not the idea of committing to a UASF from
> the get go.
The biggest disconnect is between two goals: modern soft-fork
activation's "Don't (needlessly) lose hashpower to un-upgraded
miners"; and UASF's must-signal strategy to prevent inaction.
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2020-January/017547.html
This question dives to the heart of Bitcoin's far-out future.
Of two important principles, which principle is more important:
- to allow everyone (even miners) to operate on the contract they
accepted when entering the system; or
- to protect against protocol sclerosis for the project as a whole?
Do miners have a higher obligation to evaluate upgrades than economic
nodes implementing cold storage and infrequent spends? If they do,
then so far it has been implicit. LOT=true would make that obligation
explicit.
📝 Original message:On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 7:32 PM Keagan McClelland via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> So that leads me to believe here that the folks who oppose LOT=true
> primarily have an issue with forced signaling, which personally I
> don't care about as much, not the idea of committing to a UASF from
> the get go.
The biggest disconnect is between two goals: modern soft-fork
activation's "Don't (needlessly) lose hashpower to un-upgraded
miners"; and UASF's must-signal strategy to prevent inaction.
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2020-January/017547.html
This question dives to the heart of Bitcoin's far-out future.
Of two important principles, which principle is more important:
- to allow everyone (even miners) to operate on the contract they
accepted when entering the system; or
- to protect against protocol sclerosis for the project as a whole?
Do miners have a higher obligation to evaluate upgrades than economic
nodes implementing cold storage and infrequent spends? If they do,
then so far it has been implicit. LOT=true would make that obligation
explicit.