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 563E72C for ; Fri, 12 May 2017 22:22:27 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from outmail148102.authsmtp.net (outmail148102.authsmtp.net [62.13.148.102]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8ADBE134 for ; Fri, 12 May 2017 22:22:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-c232.authsmtp.com (mail-c232.authsmtp.com [62.13.128.232]) by punt20.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id v4CMMKf5081623; Fri, 12 May 2017 23:22:20 +0100 (BST) Received: from petertodd.org (ec2-52-5-185-120.compute-1.amazonaws.com [52.5.185.120]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id v4CMMI4K073920 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 12 May 2017 23:22:19 +0100 (BST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by petertodd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 49365400DD; Fri, 12 May 2017 22:22:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: by localhost (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 435C620486; Fri, 12 May 2017 18:22:14 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 18:22:14 -0400 From: Peter Todd To: Luke Dashjr Message-ID: <20170512222214.GA4462@fedora-23-dvm> References: <201705121922.57445.luke@dashjr.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="YZ5djTAD1cGYuMQK" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <201705121922.57445.luke@dashjr.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) X-Server-Quench: 76b69216-3761-11e7-829f-00151795d556 X-AuthReport-Spam: If SPAM / abuse - report it at: http://www.authsmtp.com/abuse X-AuthRoute: OCd2Yg0TA1ZNQRgX IjsJECJaVQIpKltL GxAVKBZePFsRUQkR aAdMdwAUFVQNAgsB AmEbWVdeUl97W2M7 bghPaBtcak9QXgdq T0pMXVMcUgEbfGF4 AmUeVRp7dQUIfXZ2 YwhlWCJdVUZ7c1t+ RUhVCGwHMGB9YGIW Bl1YdwJRcQRDe0tA b1YxNiYHcQ5VPz4z GA41ejw8IwAXAgVt EEknKVUZQg4QHzE6 ThRKEDMhGlcOSiA+ KQBuNF8VVFoBeks/ PEBJ X-Authentic-SMTP: 61633532353630.1037:706 X-AuthFastPath: 0 (Was 255) X-AuthSMTP-Origin: 52.5.185.120/25 X-AuthVirus-Status: No virus detected - but ensure you scan with your own anti-virus system. X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP: Block signal enforcement via tx fees 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: Fri, 12 May 2017 22:22:27 -0000 --YZ5djTAD1cGYuMQK Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 07:22:56PM +0000, Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev wrote: > I've written a new BIP draft for OP_CHECKBLOCKVERSION to allow the commun= ity=20 > to put economic pressure on miners to deploy softforks without the extrem= e of=20 > a UASF. >=20 > https://github.com/luke-jr/bips/blob/bip-cbv/bip-cbv.mediawiki I strongly disagree with this proposal. nVersion signaling is already technically unenforceable, in the sense that = we don't have good ways of ensuring miners actually adopt the rules they're claiming to signal. Equally, it's users who ultimately adopt rules, not min= ers, and attempting to pay miners to signal certain bits will further confuse th= is point. Quite likely the outcome of users trying to anonymously pay anonymous miner= s to signal certain bits will be the complete breakdown of the honesty of the nVersion signalling system, currently enforced only by "gentlemans agreemen= t". A more productive direction would be a direct coin-owner signalling process, with users taking action based on what provable coin-ownership has signalle= d. Also, as an aside, this "specification" again shows the inadequacy and unreadability of English language specifications. I'd strongly suggest you delete it and instead mark the "reference implementation" as the specificat= ion. --=20 https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org --YZ5djTAD1cGYuMQK Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJZFjWUAAoJECSBQD2l8JH7eEMH/2Vtbl3oDycuJZ5TQgvj55x5 0lMod3nzh51PBfUSaIEefDxHbXvacl6QDsRusGOU27VcxxX+pcnrl8TVbmR5URO6 5z5L2AffJtnNLKWvqAxWSaH8jJr0Ss9QyGcGArjKySa3ZqdKSq/S0cKI1NeBz1Fw 0rRgFXps6uVGjOzfveNtzGvJcGyuhlfcKPwkeHEmBmnl0l6ZSzRNaTaPE3SRZqqe foe/i7ZAvaodhNKbicX2Y8EpE8pOW4/AV4gG9JmAPxj9vn9NiOveDYVhyOPDGncO 0Q3dLOwwGEaswZpxuLEd/c7M7LaxJmjHh9c4H0e5Fa4aK0ohsHtEubeXh/i3AUI= =dqOY -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --YZ5djTAD1cGYuMQK--