public inbox for bitcoindev@googlegroups.com
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org>
To: eric@voskuil.org
Cc: 'Bitcoin Protocol Discussion' <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] CTV BIP review
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2022 22:09:45 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <202201182209.46044.luke@dashjr.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <02cc01d80cb7$1339c050$39ad40f0$@voskuil.org>

On Tuesday 18 January 2022 22:02:24 eric@voskuil.org wrote:
> The only material distinction between BIP9 and BIP8 is that the latter may
> activate without signaled support of hash power enforcement.
>
> As unenforced soft forks are not "backward compatible" they produce a chain
> split.

Enforcement of the Bitcoin consensus protocol is by users, not miners.

Softforks never produce a chain split. Miners can, and might try to do it to 
cause disruption in retaliation, but the softfork itself does not.

> It was for this reason alone that BIP8 never gained sufficient 
> support.

BIP 8 in fact achieved consensus for Taproot activation.

> This is one of the most misleading statements I've seen here. It's not
> technically a lie, because it states what "should" happen. But it is
> clearly intended to lead people to believe that BIP8 was actually used
> ("again") - it was not. ST was some technical tweaks to BIP9.

BIP 8 was used to activate Taproot.

> The outright deception around this one topic has led to significant
> unnecessary conflict in the community. Make your argument, but make it
> honestly.

You are the one attempting to deceive here.

Luke


  reply	other threads:[~2022-01-18 22:10 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-01-18 21:19 [bitcoin-dev] CTV BIP review Luke Dashjr
2022-01-18 22:02 ` eric
2022-01-18 22:09   ` Luke Dashjr [this message]
2022-01-18 23:00     ` eric
2022-01-19 12:02       ` Michael Folkson
2022-01-20 15:23         ` Billy Tetrud
2022-01-20 22:03           ` eric
2022-01-21 17:36             ` Billy Tetrud
2022-01-18 23:54 ` Jeremy
2022-01-19  0:37   ` Alex Schoof
2022-01-20 18:38   ` Anthony Towns
2022-01-18 22:20 Prayank

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=202201182209.46044.luke@dashjr.org \
    --to=luke@dashjr.org \
    --cc=bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=eric@voskuil.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox