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 E5D48C002D for ; Sun, 24 Apr 2022 12:44:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF1844161B for ; Sun, 24 Apr 2022 12:44:29 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.897 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: smtp4.osuosl.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=jtimon-cc.20210112.gappssmtp.com 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 oBa-T6bcSqGK for ; Sun, 24 Apr 2022 12:44:28 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 Received: from mail-yb1-xb2d.google.com (mail-yb1-xb2d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::b2d]) by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9399F41619 for ; Sun, 24 Apr 2022 12:44:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-yb1-xb2d.google.com with SMTP id r189so22557228ybr.6 for ; Sun, 24 Apr 2022 05:44:28 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=jtimon-cc.20210112.gappssmtp.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=mxYdo89lmg96sFBaQJwv3My4LHulIH9jQSyJ23i/j5c=; b=tUD0bYfVIFg/Y43haH9HjgOpYGQ/8WRZ94u05W9XV0FfCcHTYoJkqLsp+Gok8URNMe ZbfXzPXrvXeJBWIp1UIMvJayoYpJL8t7VThDfk8tswx0KGjRTYGcBTIgBQT9+MKMqNGu VISBOqHx5QS43SSQrVQneUI221kkXiuUjtdn5ZHAlJzPuiEiq5AA+4hGoAxPFnjzgMAe +f10vAEsbVib4DRPq9DtlA8xb8VZM2w0//Q+gbxxloKZd1oNVqryTOjoXZ5Wlnv3q4Jc 9qW+TGj43lwzjuO2u5q0GTtFxzkBP0/1gxARYc5bWNXLQeiu9wIMyxcicsvPYzqRXAMJ +AmQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=mxYdo89lmg96sFBaQJwv3My4LHulIH9jQSyJ23i/j5c=; b=KdIA7Er1sjqoyIb3sjPEn80j5yosbbVN9bMzdCEjDC23iLvsAWc5oYQy5nnHwRSSp2 9Xusm/0wzGBX5qHm8BDg4X2F2+X3AG7VqF1CRPoZ9bnR49BtiJ/xujHV6DMlGEm68WOz 3sZcj8Hn8zuNiHd560QeNCb1atSo6jZ9dIXspnZUbaC19scIt0XGW/00aokln8WJem9S Q+SKsOlsPKlsiQGYq/d5OkPqBxFenYmoPXVOfiu/ugbMefOq/Rr8MpCBALr5F1CxK6gs SpXwcYNM/0FLugllOEfBHthEBeVDPhO7l8GGsCexW8qy28UZcMKKw1u0PFu+kLxKIbEB aGrw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530m+R+S8zCT9TRmPOdPpk3LijF+NmI1xT+1fR66jaPl9y/kEDay vZ381hk1lH5SJrHc3H5o28jXs0wen4TDAo8wXSEzzA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzuxYdfSxWAUeBtzsQ0gBCzTh5pZUrnKDZwtYaB+UPspOLmEyBlc7hkCtMLX9eSZqejG1alCxy8AnkvTl/Xw00= X-Received: by 2002:a25:107:0:b0:645:d3ed:3cb7 with SMTP id 7-20020a250107000000b00645d3ed3cb7mr9902675ybb.26.1650804267448; Sun, 24 Apr 2022 05:44:27 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20220315154549.GA7580@erisian.com.au> <20220322234951.GB11179@erisian.com.au> <20220326014546.GA12225@erisian.com.au> <20220330042106.GA13161@erisian.com.au> <20220411130522.GA3633@erisian.com.au> <20220424121429.GA7363@erisian.com.au> In-Reply-To: <20220424121429.GA7363@erisian.com.au> From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2022 14:44:16 +0200 Message-ID: To: Anthony Towns Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000f4936b05dd65d1fd" X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 24 Apr 2022 18:57:45 +0000 Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion 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: Sun, 24 Apr 2022 12:44:30 -0000 --000000000000f4936b05dd65d1fd Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, Apr 24, 2022 at 2:14 PM Anthony Towns wrote: > On Sun, Apr 24, 2022 at 12:13:08PM +0100, Jorge Tim=C3=B3n wrote: > > You're not even considering user resistance in your cases. > > Of course I am. Again: > No, you're relying on miners to stop bad proposals. > > > My claim is that for *any* bad (evil, flawed, whatever) softfork, the= n > > > attempting activation via bip8 is *never* superior to speedy trial, > > > and in some cases is worse. > > > > > > If I'm missing something, you only need to work through a single > example > > > to demonstrate I'm wrong, which seems like it ought to be easy... But > > > just saying "I disagree" and "I don't want to talk about that" isn't > > > going to convince anyone. > > The "some cases" where bip8 with lot=3Dtrue is *worse* than speedy trial > is when miners correctly see that a bad fork is bad. > > Under *any* other circumstance, when they're used to activate a bad soft > fork, speedy trial and bip8 are the same. If a resistance method works > against bip8, it works against speedy trial; if it fails against speedy > trial, it fails against bip8. > You're wrong. > > Sorry for the aggressive tone, but I when people ignore some of my poin= ts > > repeteadly, I start to wonder if they do it on purpose. > > Perhaps examine the beam in your own eye. > Yeah, whether you do that yourself or not: sorry, it's over. > Cheers, > aj > --000000000000f4936b05dd65d1fd Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


=
On Sun, Apr 24, 2022 at 2:14 PM Antho= ny Towns <aj@erisian.com.au>= wrote:
On Sun, = Apr 24, 2022 at 12:13:08PM +0100, Jorge Tim=C3=B3n wrote:
> You're not even considering user resistance in your cases.

Of course I am. Again:

No, you're r= elying on miners to stop bad proposals.
=C2=A0
> > My claim is that for *any* bad (evil, flawed, whatever) softfork,= then
> > attempting activation via bip8 is *never* superior to speedy tria= l,
> > and in some cases is worse.
> >
> > If I'm missing something, you only need to work through a sin= gle example
> > to demonstrate I'm wrong, which seems like it ought to be eas= y... But
> > just saying "I disagree" and "I don't want to = talk about that" isn't
> > going to convince anyone.

The "some cases" where bip8 with lot=3Dtrue is *worse* than speed= y trial
is when miners correctly see that a bad fork is bad.

Under *any* other circumstance, when they're used to activate a bad sof= t
fork, speedy trial and bip8 are the same. If a resistance method works
against bip8, it works against speedy trial; if it fails against speedy
trial, it fails against bip8.

You'r= e wrong.
=C2=A0
> Sorry for the aggressive tone, but I when people ignore some of my poi= nts
> repeteadly, I start to wonder if they do it on purpose.

Perhaps examine the beam in your own eye.

Yeah, whether you do that yourself or not: sorry, it's over.
=C2=A0
Cheers,
aj
--000000000000f4936b05dd65d1fd--