From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org (smtp2.osuosl.org [140.211.166.133]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 653A9C000B for ; Fri, 11 Mar 2022 00:37:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FDAA4058A for ; Fri, 11 Mar 2022 00:37:56 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: smtp2.osuosl.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=dashjr.org Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp2.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Sx-caD-RSIrQ for ; Fri, 11 Mar 2022 00:37:55 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: delayed 00:09:19 by SQLgrey-1.8.0 Received: from zinan.dashjr.org (zinan.dashjr.org [IPv6:2001:470:88ff:2f::1]) by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3B714055A for ; Fri, 11 Mar 2022 00:37:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ishibashi.lan (unknown [12.190.236.210]) (Authenticated sender: luke-jr) by zinan.dashjr.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A35F938A2135; Fri, 11 Mar 2022 00:28:11 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=dashjr.org; s=zinan; t=1646958514; bh=m5Y77xtm5u5w2oGH8uE2jZ0EUirbuQ8WqOvNhAqr5GU=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:References:In-Reply-To; b=rdNy0GBIxN09RlQJLvYx3Xu6i+28II9yNunsbtObXic/N3Hpg98bCAc0bVsFsrhED Oh0mnR10OyNuZihxR9RAxw92+nkqu8BIFHg4+DFmqKCEyVNN1kMVqExaKBtsbpQv/T Ibb2hLnHm2eRreF+5LHUl9dOCRC+wp5tprplClm4= X-Hashcash: 1:25:220311:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org::Rbzfz8mqKowDnxdv:=XEP X-Hashcash: 1:25:220311:roconnor@blockstream.com::/b6GWQzS1VMc0W2i:aiMxa From: Luke Dashjr To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org, "Russell O'Connor" Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2022 00:28:08 +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: <202203110028.09249.luke@dashjr.org> Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Speedy Trial 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: Fri, 11 Mar 2022 00:37:56 -0000 On Friday 11 March 2022 00:12:19 Russell O'Connor via bitcoin-dev wrote: > The "no-miner-veto" concerns are, to an extent, addressed by the short > timeline of Speedy Trial. No more waiting 2 years on the miners dragging > their feet. It's still a miner veto. The only way this works is if the full deployment (with UASF fallback) is released in parallel. > If you are so concerned about listening to legitimate criticism, maybe you > can design a new deployment mechanism that addresses the concerns of the > "devs-do-not-decide" faction and the "no-divegent-consensus-rules" > faction. BIP8 already does that. > A major contender to the Speedy Trial design at the time was to mandate > eventual forced signalling, championed by luke-jr. It turns out that, at > the time of that proposal, a large amount of hash power simply did not have > the firmware required to support signalling. That activation proposal > never got broad consensus, BIP 8 did in fact have broad consensus before some devs decided to ignore the community and do their own thing. Why are you trying to rewrite history? > and rightly so, because in retrospect we see > that the design might have risked knocking a significant fraction of mining > power offline if it had been deployed. Imagine if the firmware couldn't be > quickly updated or imagine if the problem had been hardware related. They had 18 months to fix their broken firmware. That's plenty of time. Luke