From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from fraxinus.osuosl.org (smtp4.osuosl.org [140.211.166.137]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB13DC077D for ; Mon, 13 Jan 2020 08:34:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by fraxinus.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D823283470 for ; Mon, 13 Jan 2020 08:34:29 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org Received: from fraxinus.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oOzCTf79sfAJ for ; Mon, 13 Jan 2020 08:34:28 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from knopi.disroot.org (knopi.disroot.org [178.21.23.139]) by fraxinus.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 83B9D82473 for ; Mon, 13 Jan 2020 08:34:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by disroot.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FAC32547B for ; Mon, 13 Jan 2020 09:34:26 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at disroot.org Received: from knopi.disroot.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (disroot.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mw-yhykC0P-G for ; Mon, 13 Jan 2020 09:34:25 +0100 (CET) Mime-Version: 1.0 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=disroot.org; s=mail; t=1578904465; bh=H/41617uujMvoVtK0o80OaSrWYMz6ZxSmJ1dGMuXpB8=; h=Date:From:Subject:To; b=CiHqgGqKSEiIu62FTOunNp7GSQQ3MrqfZEYihmHbUckqZlLVRgtWtWLLtT46IoROs iKmEDczyAqpFa5+p0Kjirw0rFGU+gwHvcDeT1lMv7RQ4Yc9npn5mV4/LGYWzEK/2Oi aPNXa54zxEydnGd6WvJNY9o9mgpc9cJl03oYXvN2wv0u4dqnPJPg6SiTBdONRjbyoH TPW//Eca9zBz4amv/stMopX9sJOlgOW9fwEXRYfXNTKUH1JYsuVskrOWZb2HLJPglr qjcMuPXLotDlhbiZ4PXYP+ze0LyBbseKJ/WFmJBVj5jtQslc/w/B+bjvCVMxAIoqdb fKxOR2bOnRrSQ== Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2020 08:34:24 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: "Yosef" Message-ID: <415e793656ab4326b48d9dc050a85eb8@disroot.org> To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 13 Jan 2020 15:12:19 +0000 Subject: [bitcoin-dev] Modern Soft Fork Activation 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: Mon, 13 Jan 2020 08:34:30 -0000 tl;dr How about 80% ?=0A=0AThe fallback to BIP-8 makes sense, but it's no= t a graceful one and we absolutely prefer BIP-9 to succeed. A failure to = reach 95% readiness signalling means 2.5 years delay, 3.5 years in total,= not yet counting.=0A=0A95% can prove difficult to achieve. Some % of neg= ligent miners that forget to upgrade is expected. Completing that to 5% i= s not too difficult for a small malicious minority trying to delay the ac= tivation. This is the issue Matt's goal #5 aims to prevent, and while the= fallback to BIP-8 helps, BIP-9=E2=80=99s 95% requirement makes it worse = by allowing quite a neglected minority to force a dramatic delay. Also no= te how in such case it would have been better to skip BIP-9 altogether an= d maybe save 1.5 years.=0A=0AMatt mentions the 95% requirement under goal= #3 "Don't (needlessly) lose hashpower to un-upgraded miners". If that is= the trade-off, I'd say 2.5 years delay is worse than a momentary loss of= hashrate. The protocol is quiet resilient to hashrate fluctuations and, = as others mentioned, at that point miners don=E2=80=99t just signal, but = lose coins if they don't upgrade, so the hashpower loss is expected to sh= ortly correct. This also means goal #4 is not really effected.=0A=0AOn Sa= t Jan 11 14:42:07 UTC 2020, Anthony Towns wrote:=0A=0A> For me, the focus= there is on Matt's first point: "avoid activating [or merging, or even p= roposing] in the face of significant, reasonable, and directed objection"= =0A=0AI agree, and believe the outreach and review process around taproot= are maybe the best we had so far. Notably goal #1 should be mostly satis= fied already at merge time, so risking 3.5 years delay after that, seems = excessive.=0A=0ABIP-91 =E2=80=9CReduced threshold Segwit MASF=E2=80=9D wa= s deployed by miners specifically to reduce the 95% requirement down to 8= 0% during the segwit drama. While hopefully taproot won=E2=80=99t produce= any such excitements, the events around segwit activation and the weird = =E2=80=9Chash wars=E2=80=9D meme that later followed =E2=80=93 might enco= urage some to try similar games again.=0A=0AThe difference between `5% mi= nus apathetic-miners` and `20% minus apathetic-miners` is dramatic and ca= n make such attempts an order of magnitude more difficult.=0A=0AThe tapro= ot process is looking great so far, I feel it will be a mistake to put it= on a route that can easily extend to so many years. I suggest keeping Ma= tt=E2=80=99s proposal as is but decrease BIP-9=E2=80=99s 95% threshold do= wn to around 80%.=0A=0AYosef