From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 958CBB1F for ; Tue, 4 Apr 2017 18:02:19 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from zinan.dashjr.org (zinan.dashjr.org [192.3.11.21]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C74E18B for ; Tue, 4 Apr 2017 18:02:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ishibashi.localnet (unknown [IPv6:2001:470:5:265:a45d:823b:2d27:961c]) (Authenticated sender: luke-jr) by zinan.dashjr.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6490F38A3126; Tue, 4 Apr 2017 18:01:53 +0000 (UTC) X-Hashcash: 1:25:170404:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org::nkh8UVa=QTVYcCF1:cpVE X-Hashcash: 1:25:170404:sanch0panza@protonmail.com::=eOBfRjN6/I8WgLa:OIO6 X-Hashcash: 1:25:170404:luke_bipeditor@dashjr.org::EC/GbNpg4Qmo8bTM:avYF/ From: Luke Dashjr To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org, Sancho Panza Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 18:01:51 +0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/4.9.16-gentoo; KDE/4.14.29; x86_64; ; ) References: In-Reply-To: X-PGP-Key-Fingerprint: E463 A93F 5F31 17EE DE6C 7316 BD02 9424 21F4 889F X-PGP-Key-ID: BD02942421F4889F X-PGP-Keyserver: hkp://pgp.mit.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201704041801.51655.luke@dashjr.org> X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Cc: "luke_bipeditor@dashjr.org" Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP proposal: Generalized version bits voting (bip-genvbvoting) X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2017 18:02:19 -0000 On Monday, April 03, 2017 9:06:02 AM Sancho Panza via bitcoin-dev wrote: > While BIP9 has served the community reasonably well until now, the > author remarks several shortcomings in its approach: > > - it limits itself to backward-compatible changes, precluding its > applicability to hard forks BIP 9 doesn't limit itself, merely acknowledges the *inherent* nature of it not being applicable to hardforks. BIP 9 provides a mechanism for having miners coordinate softforks because they can make the upgrade process smoother this way. But the same is not true of hardforks: miners are essentially irrelevant to them, and cannot make the process any smoother. Therefore, BIP 9 and any miner signalling in general is not very useful for deploying these. > - a fixed 95% threshold is not flexible enough to allow for a 'spectrum > of contentiousness' to be represented > > - the 95% threshold allows small minorities to veto proposed changes, > lead to stagnation (viz. current standoffs) Softforks are not required to use BIP 9, and even if they do, they are not required to use the recommended thresholds. Basically, the problems you're trying to solve don't exist... Luke