From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org (smtp4.osuosl.org [140.211.166.137]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43DAFC0001 for ; Tue, 2 Mar 2021 18:58:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 250C24E456 for ; Tue, 2 Mar 2021 18:58:15 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.201 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: smtp4.osuosl.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=dashjr.org Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp4.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Vzcs9LX_lYbw for ; Tue, 2 Mar 2021 18:58:13 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 Received: from zinan.dashjr.org (zinan.dashjr.org [192.3.11.21]) by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02B384E41B for ; Tue, 2 Mar 2021 18:58:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ishibashi.lan (unknown [12.190.236.211]) (Authenticated sender: luke-jr) by zinan.dashjr.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 00CE438A00A0; Tue, 2 Mar 2021 18:57:41 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=dashjr.org; s=zinan; t=1614711491; bh=dvHyGstHsgBFgQRFo3xlqF2v/XoUQQYqNoeLMfjToKk=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:Cc:References:In-Reply-To; b=fbhyG/rLpOa0LFKVi/Sk98xY+NdbqU6NS3pTwmUeI5/2YRu6weD9ng1nII//+Ic3T 6fpph+0P/3IYw+QsFyxIvxkuQU/xxcMChlvDsRxl9/I+IkqOJXC0sqT9THNV+lyf/1 y17NYZmxjMLxoBoj9D0+wQ0TFCJ6FELF1aHpKyFQ= X-Hashcash: 1:25:210302:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org::nXZDD=1rX0zECaJH:apICU X-Hashcash: 1:25:210302:arielluaces@gmail.com::sfW4fjTq2=9Nerv+:gxPy X-Hashcash: 1:25:210302:michaelfolkson@gmail.com::Zkajely584bLr/XO:aF1Vm From: Luke Dashjr To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org, "Ariel Lorenzo-Luaces" Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2021 18:57:38 +0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.10 References: In-Reply-To: X-KMail-QuotePrefix: > MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <202103021857.39275.luke@dashjr.org> Cc: Michael Folkson Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] UASF (LOT=true) kick off meeting - Tuesday March 2nd 19:00 UTC on ##uasf IRC channel X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2021 18:58:15 -0000 On Tuesday 02 March 2021 18:22:35 Ariel Lorenzo-Luaces via bitcoin-dev wrote: > I'm realizing that a clear advantage of LOT=false is that it can happen > without the need for a social movement. All that is really needed is the > convincing of 95% miners. Apathetic users will never notice any kind of > service disruption no matter the success or failure of the activation. This > is obviously why it naturally became the default activation method. No. Miners enforcing rules without the social support is a 51% attack, not a softfork. > While LOT=true, on the other hand, must be able to 51% the blockchain to > win the apathetic users. But then the reorgs will not be pretty. Or if it > ever clearly gets over the 51% hurdle then all apathetic users now need to > scramble to use the rogue client to be safe from reorgs. Either way it's > disruptive. No, LOT=True doesn't do this. It only happens if miners choose to create an invalid chain, which they could do at any time with or without a softfork involved. Luke