From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 067418D9 for ; Wed, 19 Aug 2015 17:28:41 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-la0-f46.google.com (mail-la0-f46.google.com [209.85.215.46]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 69459106 for ; Wed, 19 Aug 2015 17:28:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: by lalv9 with SMTP id v9so7486283lal.0 for ; Wed, 19 Aug 2015 10:28:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=/5WbKPs8E8bv/p+0q04VKx8YN8jHklC5nL20s+G8hyY=; b=Z+0NibS6ptcrzeDGbdDjwNjKTNg+4Ad5HP6tl8vUd53bbeyZBfLhDiLJ/zdilriNT3 QoMh+ZoOSydL182et62pnTLW/I88Gdmgx2aiCX6unGV4VkOZEhTPSgYTaCjlj9CnFVP9 aoWrrU0ekeyIFQ8e98BYSMC2wsMWirMFHlVXB9TWHOcFmunuTU1mSqF3N0hWJfO3/WeT YdoTj4Q8EjrWTU4efIo1yfgq7b5XE8efKf4om8JxM2nRu196tg/IpEQWoWFWIt1vJoYq TUxl7pB1blaSWUdsz8OauBBUHPsDnhRYwriFaDY03HEDszV8B6cGDJ3hWiDp/y6LrmFx Jw3g== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkWj9P8MsuKMNtYGmRs2/yHBbFyw1CKy7J0VxDx+aBLbOWJZ2DAfPGxOK1bbhdKdmEJK/Yv MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.112.151.178 with SMTP id ur18mr12565140lbb.59.1440005318847; Wed, 19 Aug 2015 10:28:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.25.15.22 with HTTP; Wed, 19 Aug 2015 10:28:38 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2015 19:28:38 +0200 Message-ID: From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= To: Adam Back Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin XT Fork X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2015 17:28:41 -0000 On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 6:53 PM, Adam Back via bitcoin-dev wrote: > (and that in a hard fork it is not a miner vote really > as in soft-forks). I think calling it "miner vote" was the first mistake: miner's shouldn't have a "voting power" the rest of the users lack. I prefer to call it "miner upgrade confirmation" and in BIP99 the recommendation is to use 95% for both uncontroversial softforks and uncontroversial hardforks (the uncontroversial harforks also have a minimum height before starting the miner confirmation/voting to give users additional time to upgrade). To me it's no different that the mechanism is used for uncontroversial softforks or hardforks, the main question is that it is NOT a "miners' democracy/oligopoly". If you expect everyone (including all miners) to upgrade, I don't think any less than 95% makes sense. On the other hand, 100% makes it relatively cheap for an attacker to block uncontroversial consensus changes. For a Schism hardfork, bip99 doesn't recommend to use miner's confirmation/vote at all. Miners could be against the change, for example in an ASIC-reset Schism hardfork or in a "hardfork" (it cannot be a softfork if miners oppose to it) to reduce the block size), but that shouldn't stop the hardforkers if they think dividing the currency in 2 is the best solution to whatever is the problem at hand (which I don't think it's the case now). Of course, BIP99 is still a draft and can still be changed. But I would really like that we focused on "how to do hardforks in general" first and only then focus on how to make a blocksize hardfork concretely.