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 2CA4F8D9 for ; Thu, 6 Jul 2017 20:43:47 +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 86008140 for ; Thu, 6 Jul 2017 20:43:46 +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 6648D38A2259; Thu, 6 Jul 2017 20:43:31 +0000 (UTC) X-Hashcash: 1:25:170706:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org::32qu6fgS6iMd55EA:T20y X-Hashcash: 1:25:170706:greg@xiph.org::bloBruGaBgdwpcZz:ayuAU From: Luke Dashjr To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org, Gregory Maxwell Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2017 20:43:28 +0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/4.9.16-gentoo; KDE/4.14.32; x86_64; ; ) References: <201707050350.53122.luke@dashjr.org> 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-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201707062043.30569.luke@dashjr.org> X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED, 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 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Height based vs block time based thresholds 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: Thu, 06 Jul 2017 20:43:47 -0000 On Wednesday 05 July 2017 8:06:33 AM Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev wrote: > These proposals for gratuitous orphaning are reckless and coersive. > We have a professional obligation to first do no harm, and amplifying > orphaning which can otherwise easily be avoided violates it. Nothing is "orphaned" unless miners are acting negligently or maliciously. Incentivising honest behaviour from miners is inherently part of Bitcoin's design, and these changes are necessary for both that and keeping the network secure. This doesn't do harm; it reduces risk of harm. > It's one thing to argue that some disruption is strictly needed for > the sake of advancement, it's another to see yourself fit as judge, > jury, and executioner to any that does not jump at your command. > (which is exactly the tone I and at least some others extract from > your advocacy of these changes and similar activity around BIP148). I don't appreciate the uncalled-for character assassination, and it doesn't belong on this mailing list. > I for one oppose those changes strongly. > > > Not having a mandatory signal turned out to be a serious bug in BIP 9, > > I have seen no evidence or case for this. Since you apparently have a drastically different opinion on this subject, I think it may be best to wait until after BIP148 to continue the discussion (thereby having more real-world information to work from). Therefore, I have opened a new pull request with just the parts you seem to be objecting to removed. Please let us know if this version is satisfactory. https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/551 Luke