Carlo Spiller [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2021-03-08 📝 Original message:Hi Ariel Thanks for your ...
📅 Original date posted:2021-03-08
📝 Original message:Hi Ariel
Thanks for your reply with the link to the SMA proposal, which I had
missed previoulsy. It is indeed very similar.
I see that Speedy trial is currently gaining broad support, which is
good. I think my proposal with the threshold set to 51% instead of 80%
to change LOT=false to LOT=true is also pretty similar to ST, with the
key difference being that the next step after a fail of MASF is already
baked in.
Excited to see how it all plays out.
Best
Carlo
Carlo Spiller
+41 79 368 85 06
www.carlospiller.com
Am 07.03.21 um 22:13 schrieb Ariel Lorenzo-Luaces:
> Hi Carlo
>
> This your proposal is similar to the Simple Majority Activation
> proposal (SMA). The difference is that your proposal has the final
> activation threshold set to 80% and SMA has it set to 51%
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2021-March/018587.html
> <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2021-March/018587.html>;
>
> The problem with what you're proposing is what do users do if
> signaling is somewhere between 51% to 79%? Users that want to promote
> a UASF know that their miner majority can activate Taproot and
> activate without the 21% to 49% of miners needing to signal (or
> purposefully stalling). A UASF knows they have majority mining power
> so there is little risk to them and a big reward (activating Taproot)
> so they are incentivized to do a UASF.
>
> A UASF with a miner majority can scare everyone else about them being
> at risk of big reorgs to gain traction and followers.
>
> With the same proposal but the final threshold set to 51% instead of
> 80% there can't be risk of a UASF because if 51% is not reached they
> know they don't have enough miner support to keep the chain together.
>
> If support is less than 50% a UASF movement needs to hard fork anyway
> to change the PoW (for protection) and change addresses to prevent
> double spends.
>
> I really like the SMA proposal with 51% because it removes the
> incentive to do a UASF.
>
> Cheers
> Ariel Lorenzo-Luaces
> On Mar 7, 2021, at 6:37 AM, Carlo Spiller via bitcoin-dev
> <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> <mailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>> wrote:
>
> Hi everybody
>
> I'm new to this list, but not new to Bitcoin, having skin in the game
> since 2014. I was there for the scaling war and the drama around SegWit,
> as a simple user. This time, I run my own full node and follow
> development. I hope to bring something new to the table.
>
> Having witnessed the miner's unwillingness to activate SegWit truly
> makes me concerened for a simple LOT=false. After reading the discussion
> now for some time and thinking about it myself, I have come to the
> following proposal.
>
> Initially deploy with LOT=false and an activation threshold of 95% of
> miner signaling.
>
> *IFF* after 6 months Taproot is not activated by MASF, BUT at least 80%
> of hashpower signaled for the upgrade, LOT gets a lock-in date another 6
> months later and the threshold for MASF is lowered to 90%.
>
> If after the initial 6 months of signaling with LOT=false, 80% is not
> reached, the proposal expires.
>
> This way, a small percent of hashpower does not get to stall activation,
> rather, 80% of hashpower can activate LOT=true, and later, 90% can
> activate Taproot. If a flaw is found in Taproot in the first six months
> (unlikely anyway), miners simply don't signal and the proposal expires.
> If miners don't signal at all, only six months are lost, before a new
> activation logic can be deployed.
>
> Don't mind this if something similar was already proposed somewhere else.
>
> Best
>
> Carlo
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>;
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20210308/1f9edeb5/attachment-0001.html>;
📝 Original message:Hi Ariel
Thanks for your reply with the link to the SMA proposal, which I had
missed previoulsy. It is indeed very similar.
I see that Speedy trial is currently gaining broad support, which is
good. I think my proposal with the threshold set to 51% instead of 80%
to change LOT=false to LOT=true is also pretty similar to ST, with the
key difference being that the next step after a fail of MASF is already
baked in.
Excited to see how it all plays out.
Best
Carlo
Carlo Spiller
+41 79 368 85 06
www.carlospiller.com
Am 07.03.21 um 22:13 schrieb Ariel Lorenzo-Luaces:
> Hi Carlo
>
> This your proposal is similar to the Simple Majority Activation
> proposal (SMA). The difference is that your proposal has the final
> activation threshold set to 80% and SMA has it set to 51%
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2021-March/018587.html
> <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2021-March/018587.html>;
>
> The problem with what you're proposing is what do users do if
> signaling is somewhere between 51% to 79%? Users that want to promote
> a UASF know that their miner majority can activate Taproot and
> activate without the 21% to 49% of miners needing to signal (or
> purposefully stalling). A UASF knows they have majority mining power
> so there is little risk to them and a big reward (activating Taproot)
> so they are incentivized to do a UASF.
>
> A UASF with a miner majority can scare everyone else about them being
> at risk of big reorgs to gain traction and followers.
>
> With the same proposal but the final threshold set to 51% instead of
> 80% there can't be risk of a UASF because if 51% is not reached they
> know they don't have enough miner support to keep the chain together.
>
> If support is less than 50% a UASF movement needs to hard fork anyway
> to change the PoW (for protection) and change addresses to prevent
> double spends.
>
> I really like the SMA proposal with 51% because it removes the
> incentive to do a UASF.
>
> Cheers
> Ariel Lorenzo-Luaces
> On Mar 7, 2021, at 6:37 AM, Carlo Spiller via bitcoin-dev
> <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> <mailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>> wrote:
>
> Hi everybody
>
> I'm new to this list, but not new to Bitcoin, having skin in the game
> since 2014. I was there for the scaling war and the drama around SegWit,
> as a simple user. This time, I run my own full node and follow
> development. I hope to bring something new to the table.
>
> Having witnessed the miner's unwillingness to activate SegWit truly
> makes me concerened for a simple LOT=false. After reading the discussion
> now for some time and thinking about it myself, I have come to the
> following proposal.
>
> Initially deploy with LOT=false and an activation threshold of 95% of
> miner signaling.
>
> *IFF* after 6 months Taproot is not activated by MASF, BUT at least 80%
> of hashpower signaled for the upgrade, LOT gets a lock-in date another 6
> months later and the threshold for MASF is lowered to 90%.
>
> If after the initial 6 months of signaling with LOT=false, 80% is not
> reached, the proposal expires.
>
> This way, a small percent of hashpower does not get to stall activation,
> rather, 80% of hashpower can activate LOT=true, and later, 90% can
> activate Taproot. If a flaw is found in Taproot in the first six months
> (unlikely anyway), miners simply don't signal and the proposal expires.
> If miners don't signal at all, only six months are lost, before a new
> activation logic can be deployed.
>
> Don't mind this if something similar was already proposed somewhere else.
>
> Best
>
> Carlo
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>;
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20210308/1f9edeb5/attachment-0001.html>;