Jorge Timón [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2022-03-17 📝 Original message:On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at ...
📅 Original date posted:2022-03-17
📝 Original message:On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 5:32 PM Billy Tetrud via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> I think involving users more in activation is a good avenue of thought for improving how bitcoin does soft forks. I also think the idea you brought up of some way for people to signal opposition is a good idea. I've suggested a mechanism for signature-based user polling, I've also suggested a mechanism where miners can actively signal for opposing a soft fork. It seems like there should be some common ground between us in those ideas. Where it seems we may perhaps unreconcilably disagree are that A. miners are users too and generally have interests that are important and different than most users, and giving them at least some mechanism to force discussion is appropriate, and B. chain splits are no joke and should almost never be possible accidentally and therefore we should make a significant effort to avoid them, which almost definitely means orderly coordination of miners.
Any user polling system is going to be vulnerable to sybil attacks.
> Do you have anything concrete you want to propose? An example mechanism? Are you simply here advocating your support for BIP8+LOT=true?
Yes, I want BIP+LOT=true (aka the original bip8).
I also want users to be easily able to coordinate resistance to any
given change, as I described in this thread and others and luke has
done many times.
I also generally oppose to speedy trial being used for any consensus
rule change deployment.
Imagine someone comes and proposes a block size increase through
extension block softfork.
Would you like them to use speedy trial or BIP8+LOT=true for deployment?
📝 Original message:On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 5:32 PM Billy Tetrud via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> I think involving users more in activation is a good avenue of thought for improving how bitcoin does soft forks. I also think the idea you brought up of some way for people to signal opposition is a good idea. I've suggested a mechanism for signature-based user polling, I've also suggested a mechanism where miners can actively signal for opposing a soft fork. It seems like there should be some common ground between us in those ideas. Where it seems we may perhaps unreconcilably disagree are that A. miners are users too and generally have interests that are important and different than most users, and giving them at least some mechanism to force discussion is appropriate, and B. chain splits are no joke and should almost never be possible accidentally and therefore we should make a significant effort to avoid them, which almost definitely means orderly coordination of miners.
Any user polling system is going to be vulnerable to sybil attacks.
> Do you have anything concrete you want to propose? An example mechanism? Are you simply here advocating your support for BIP8+LOT=true?
Yes, I want BIP+LOT=true (aka the original bip8).
I also want users to be easily able to coordinate resistance to any
given change, as I described in this thread and others and luke has
done many times.
I also generally oppose to speedy trial being used for any consensus
rule change deployment.
Imagine someone comes and proposes a block size increase through
extension block softfork.
Would you like them to use speedy trial or BIP8+LOT=true for deployment?