From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org (smtp4.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::137]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E260C0012 for ; Thu, 31 Mar 2022 15:34:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 279A341E6A for ; Thu, 31 Mar 2022 15:34:50 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.098 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: smtp4.osuosl.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 gADsmc3IuPZM for ; Thu, 31 Mar 2022 15:34:46 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 Received: from mail-ed1-x52f.google.com (mail-ed1-x52f.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::52f]) by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B9B4141E3E for ; Thu, 31 Mar 2022 15:34:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ed1-x52f.google.com with SMTP id a17so28619401edm.9 for ; Thu, 31 Mar 2022 08:34:45 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=kEitIDsU6ceF6mk05qx2My3EPOoldKlQ2ShoHvI4WZk=; b=Q4dkEsGHkLwhD5bhJSmdG33imK0ekey3yhoxCmqzIfMd0/jhBZdQVJB4JYDDhkAOLC eysK6+RVeAy64yhV+EYV5u2mCOlDBIOkE5L0jimNRNjuEH29dVA1uxMC9THEL7cuWaDt aFnSmStvD4pzcmXngoSKlGw1uXKlWCn3zRGkTXu/gihOIDVgu5tQkpNuMEKqkuM4p2AV 4d/vqI1Gf1VqY1zck6gWFIXI5Z+VauKVIv/PnV6Endb4xQD1gcyxhom24/a+h8la/Qkk PFzyv+ypWGZes+jvxDAyu3xgUw+CS++Ryi2O9XB8Ok0DDsFdZV9dx2DWDt32rCzceGAD GOjw== 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=kEitIDsU6ceF6mk05qx2My3EPOoldKlQ2ShoHvI4WZk=; b=dQJFqoi+aYyqlPqEhSazmcp1jh8A1ati7t4V2dSnIwteLOAI9K7HLS/6OTEawP4IMn /967hgS+3cVOSBvCjUR0BmCkTs9ivCsvlIWYLk3CG3dyKwTLeMSZXv/A22nMvL8uPasi X7ORNVgLSB/Qn2yJ1V4gRMB5ERE/zmJv3/5M2W33U1m6q0x6LILMqZLhdLrSoc00jLOP qgkRayC2aDkQq/MQKIqLTKLQdcbQd0Z4ipu4aZerstiXnPJlL27vcN/oQCtsiZz4hDfK BlXP6TuYPTcCIRSgN/0QA3p8eS1W42wiIHEbwKoJ9ITskKawnK9Vg1ogPzNU/fComUPH gnFw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530xA/GPj01vxceavdoYJecVl+Z3QyEZ+mNz8jjl9EDMiJt0usrM x8HQlO8t2Rnx4Cg+L9qM/oQhGR17Bh8aPFd31d0qOIf8 X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyRfT0Kp65/piDdXV6gXm9tNk2idDCZe7AcSMkX2al25RFu+tJPzqR/7UryeGBucGjRZy8U97aY4DcDbp/rmqA= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6402:1e88:b0:419:746e:fb05 with SMTP id f8-20020a0564021e8800b00419746efb05mr16758878edf.307.1648740883542; Thu, 31 Mar 2022 08:34:43 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Billy Tetrud Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2022 10:34:26 -0500 Message-ID: To: pushd Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000b0b85f05db85663f" X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 31 Mar 2022 15:37:39 +0000 Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion , Anthony Towns 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: Thu, 31 Mar 2022 15:34:50 -0000 --000000000000b0b85f05db85663f Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > I am not trying to convince you If that's really true then you're wasting my and everyone's time here. > Signaling period is a waste of time if mining pools that agreed on a soft fork earlier do politics They can and will do politics regardless of why misunderstandings about signaling. This is not a relevant point. > It is considered as voting not just by people outside Bitcoin but the participants itself This is not a concrete downside. You are simply restating the premise. > It gives miners an edge over economic nodes that enforce consensus rules This is completely false. I have to assume you don't include yourself in the list of users who think a passing vote of miners is required to upgrade Bitcoin. Am I wrong? If not, then you should know that this misunderstanding gives no one an edge. So I'm counting 0 concrete downsides of this misunderstanding of how signaling works that are both relevant and true. I'm going to stick with my conclusion that this is a pointless dead end argument to make about soft fork deployment in particular, and literally any technical design in general. You will be able to find 3 people who misunderstand BIP8, or literally any other thing you come up with. You could probably find thousands. Or millions if you ask people who've never heard of it. The argument that changing the design will somehow improve that situation is perplexing, but the argument that changing the idea might be a good idea on that basis is completely unconscionable. On Thu, Mar 31, 2022, 09:19 pushd wrote: > > Why do you care what they think? Why does it matter if they > misunderstand? > > I care about improving soft fork activation mechanism and shared one of > the advantages that helps avoid misleading things. It matters because they > are participants in this process. > > > > If the people aren't imaginary, then its their importance that's > imaginary. > > Neither the people nor their importance is imaginary. They are a part of > Bitcoin and as important as our opinion about soft forks on this mailing > list. > > > > This isn't even sufficient evidence that they don't understand. > > One example of an exchange: https://i.postimg.cc/zv4M6MSp/2KM5tcE.png > > One example of a user: > https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/97043/is-there-an-active-list-of-bips-currently-open-for-voting/ > > 3 examples for each (user, mining pool and exchange) are enough to discuss > a problem or list advantages of BIP 8/LOT=TRUE. I can create an archive > with more if it helps during next soft fork. > > > > You haven't convinced me this is a significant problem. What are the > concrete downsides? Why do you think this can't be fixed by simple > persistent explaining? > > I am not trying to convince you and we can have different opinions. > > Downsides: > > - Signaling period is a waste of time if mining pools that agreed on a > soft fork earlier do politics or influenced by councils such as BMC or > governments during signaling > > - It is considered as voting not just by people outside Bitcoin but the > participants itself > > - It gives miners an edge over economic nodes that enforce consensus rules > > Simple persistent explaining has not helped in last few years. I don't see > anything wrong in listing this as one of the advantages for BIP8/LOT=TRUE. > > > pushd > --- > > parallel lines meet at infinity? > > ------- Original Message ------- > On Thursday, March 31st, 2022 at 10:01 AM, Billy Tetrud < > billy.tetrud@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Many users, miners and exchanges still think its voting > > Why do you care what they think? Why does it matter if they misunderstand? > > > it is not an imaginary group of people > > If the people aren't imaginary, then its their importance that's imaginary. > > > One example of a mining pool > > This isn't even sufficient evidence that they don't understand. Its quite > possible they're using the word "voting" loosely or that they don't > understand english very well. And again, so what if they tweet things that > are not correctly worded? This is not a reason to change how we design > bitcoin soft forks. > > Its not even wrong to say that a particular signaling round is very much > like voting. What's wrong is saying that bitcoin upgrades are made if and > only if miners vote to approve those changes. > > > I see a problem that exists > > You haven't convinced me this is a significant problem. What are the > concrete downsides? Why do you think this can't be fixed by simple > persistent explaining? You can find groups of people who misunderstand > basically any aspect of bitcoin. The solution to people misunderstanding > the design is never to change how bitcoin is designed. > > > On Wed, Mar 30, 2022 at 4:14 PM pushd wrote: > >> > No it does not. This narrative is the worst. A bad explanation of >> speedy trial can mislead people into thinking miner signalling is how >> Bitcoin upgrades are voted in. But a bad explanation can explain anything >> badly. >> >> I agree it is worst but why do you think this narrative exists? People >> have tried explaining it. Many users, miners and exchanges still think its >> voting. I think the problem is with activation method so BIP 8/LOT=TRUE is >> a solution. >> >> >> > The solution is not to change how we engineer soft forks, it's to >> explain speedy trial better to this imaginary group of important people >> that think miner signaling is voting. >> >> We can suggest different solutions but the problem exists and it is not >> an imaginary group of people. >> >> One example of a mining pool: https://archive.ph/oyH04 >> >> >> > We shouldn't change how we engineer Bitcoin because of optics. I >> completely object to that point continuing to be used. >> >> Voting as described on wiki is quite similar to what happens during >> miners signaling followed by activation if a certain threshold is reached. >> If some participants in this process consider it voting instead of >> signaling for readiness then listing advantages of a better activation >> method should help everyone reading this thread/email. >> >> Sorry, I don't understand your objection. I see a problem that exists >> since years and a better activation method fixes it. There are other >> positives for using BIP 8/LOT=TRUE which I shared in >> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-March/020178.html >> >> I will continue to discuss this problem with solutions until we use >> better activation methods for future soft forks in any discussion about >> activation methods. >> >> >> pushd >> --- >> >> parallel lines meet at infinity? >> >> ------- Original Message ------- >> On Thursday, March 31st, 2022 at 1:40 AM, Billy Tetrud < >> billy.tetrud@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> @Pushd >> >> > Speedy trial makes it worse by misleading lot of bitcoin users >> including miners to consider signaling as voting and majority votes decide >> if a soft fork gets activated >> >> No it does not. This narrative is the worst. A bad explanation of speedy >> trial can mislead people into thinking miner signalling is how Bitcoin >> upgrades are voted in. But a bad explanation can explain anything badly. >> The solution is not to change how we engineer soft forks, it's to explain >> speedy trial better to this imaginary group of important people that think >> miner signaling is voting. >> >> We shouldn't change how we engineer Bitcoin because of optics. I >> completely object to that point continuing to be used. >> >> On Wed, Mar 30, 2022, 05:36 pushd via bitcoin-dev < >> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: >> >>> > Any case where a flawed proposal makes it through getting activation >>> parameters set and released, but doesn't achieve supermajority hashpower >>> support is made worse by bip8/lot=true in comparison to speedy trial. >>> >>> - Flawed proposal making it through activation is a failure of review >>> process >>> >>> - Supermajority hashpower percentage decided by bitcoin core developers >>> can choose to not follow old or new consensus rules at any point >>> >>> - Speedy trial makes it worse by misleading lot of bitcoin users >>> including miners to consider signaling as voting and majority votes decide >>> if a soft fork gets activated >>> >>> - BIP 8/LOT=TRUE keeps things simple. Miners need to follow consensus >>> rules as they do right now if they wish to mine blocks for subsidy and fees. >>> >>> >>> Note: Mining pools or individual miners can participate in soft fork >>> discussions regardless of activation method and share their concern which >>> can be evaluated based on technical merits. >>> >>> >>> pushd >>> --- >>> >>> parallel lines meet at infinity? >>> _______________________________________________ >>> bitcoin-dev mailing list >>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org >>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >>> >> >> > --000000000000b0b85f05db85663f Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> I am not trying to convince yo= u

=C2=A0If that's re= ally true then you're wasting my and everyone's time here.

> Signaling period is a waste= of time if mining pools that agreed on a soft fork earlier do politics

They can and will do politi= cs regardless of why misunderstandings about signaling. This is not a relev= ant point.

> It is co= nsidered as voting not just by people outside Bitcoin but the participants = itself

This is not a con= crete downside. You are simply restating the premise.=C2=A0

> It gives miners an edge over eco= nomic nodes that enforce consensus rules

<= div dir=3D"auto">This is completely false. I have to assume you don't i= nclude yourself in the list of users who think a passing vote of miners is = required to upgrade Bitcoin. Am I wrong? If not, then you should know that = this misunderstanding gives no one an edge.=C2=A0
So I'm counting 0 concrete downsides of this = misunderstanding of how signaling works that are both relevant and true. I&= #39;m going to stick with my conclusion that this is a pointless dead end a= rgument to make about soft fork deployment in particular, and literally any= technical design in general.=C2=A0

You will be able to find 3 people who misunderstand BIP8, or li= terally any other thing you come up with. You could probably find thousands= . Or millions if you ask people who've never heard of it. The argument = that changing the design will somehow improve that situation is perplexing,= but the argument that changing the idea might be a good idea on that basis= is completely unconscionable.=C2=A0


On Thu, Mar 31, 2022, 09:19 pushd <pushd@protonmail.com> wrote= :
> Why do you care what they think? Why does it matt= er if they misunderstand?

I care about impr= oving soft fork activation mechanism and shared one of the advantages that = helps avoid misleading things. It matters because they are participants in = this process.


> If = the people aren't imaginary, then its their importance that's imagi= nary.

Neither the people nor their im= portance is imaginary. They are a part of Bitcoin and as important as our o= pinion about soft forks on this mailing list.


> This isn't even sufficient evidence that t= hey don't understand.

One example= of an exchange: https://i.pos= timg.cc/zv4M6MSp/2KM5tcE.png


3 examples for ea= ch (user, mining pool and exchange) are enough to discuss a problem or list= advantages of BIP 8/LOT=3DTRUE. I can create an archive with more if it he= lps during next soft fork.


<= span>> You haven't convinced me this is a significant problem. What = are the concrete downsides? Why do you think this can't be fixed by sim= ple persistent explaining?

I am not = trying to convince you and we can have different opinions.

Downsides:

- Si= gnaling period is a waste of time if mining pools that agreed on a soft for= k earlier do politics or influenced by councils such as BMC or governments = during signaling

- It is considered a= s voting not just by people outside Bitcoin but the participants itself

- It gives miners an edge over economic = nodes that enforce consensus rules

Simple = persistent explaining has not helped in last few years. I don't see any= thing wrong in listing this as one of the advantages for BIP8/LOT=3DTRUE.


pushd
---

parallel lines meet at infinity?

------- Original Message -------
On Thursday, March 31st, 2022 at 10:01 AM, Billy Tetrud <bil= ly.tetrud@gmail.com> wrote:

> Many users, miners and exc= hanges still think its voting

Why do you care what they think? Why does it matter if they misu= nderstand?

&g= t; it is not an ima= ginary group of people

If the people aren't imaginary, then its their importance tha= t's imaginary.

> One exam= ple of a mining pool

This isn't even sufficient evidence that they don't underst= and. Its quite possible they're using the word "voting" loose= ly or that they don't understand english very well. And again, so what = if they tweet things that are not correctly worded? This is not a reason to= change how we design bitcoin soft forks.

Its not even wrong to say that a particular s= ignaling round is very much like voting. What's wrong is saying that bi= tcoin upgrades are made if and only if miners vote to approve those changes= .

> I see a problem that exi= sts

<= /span>
You haven= 't convinced me this is a significant problem. What are the concrete do= wnsides? Why do you think this can't be fixed by simple persistent expl= aining? You can find groups of people who misunderstand basically any aspec= t of bitcoin. The solution to people misunderstanding the design is never t= o change how bitcoin is designed.


On Wed, Mar 30, 2022 at 4:14 PM p= ushd <pushd@protonmail.com> wrote:=
> No it does not. This narrative = is the worst. A bad explanation of speedy trial can mislead people into thi= nking miner signalling is how Bitcoin upgrades are voted in. But a bad expl= anation can explain anything badly.

I agree it is worst but why do you think= this narrative exists? People have tried explaining it. Many users, miners= and exchanges still think its voting. I think the problem is with activati= on method so BIP 8/LOT=3DTRUE is a solution.


> The solution is = not to change how we engineer soft forks, it's to explain speedy trial = better to this imaginary group of important people that think miner signali= ng is voting.
<= span style=3D"background-color:rgb(255,255,255);display:inline">
=
We can suggest different soluti= ons but the problem exists and it is not an imaginary group of people.

One example of a mining pool: https://archive.ph/oyH04


> We shouldn't chang= e how we engineer Bitcoin because of optics. I completely object to that po= int continuing to be used.

Voting as described on wiki is quite similar to what happens during miner= s signaling followed by activation if a certain threshold is reached. If so= me participants in this process consider it voting instead of signaling for= readiness then listing advantages of a better activation method should hel= p everyone reading this thread/email.

Sorry, I don't understand your objection. I see a problem that= exists since years and a better activation method fixes it. There are othe= r positives for using BIP 8/LOT=3DTRUE which I shared in https= ://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-March/020178.html

I will continue to discuss th= is problem with solutions until we use better activation methods for future= soft forks in any discussion about activation methods.


pushd
---

parallel lines meet at infinity?

------- Original Message -------
On Thursday, March 31st, 2022 at 1:40 AM, Billy Tetrud <billy.tetrud@gmail.com> wrote:

@Pushd

> Speedy trial= makes it worse by misleading lot of bitcoin users including miners to cons= ider signaling as voting and majority votes decide if a soft fork gets acti= vated

No it does not. This narrative is the worst. A bad expla= nation of speedy trial can mislead people into thinking miner signalling is= how Bitcoin upgrades are voted in. But a bad explanation can explain anyth= ing badly. The solution is not to change how we engineer soft forks, it'= ;s to explain speedy trial better to this imaginary group of important peop= le that think miner signaling is voting.

We shouldn't change how we engineer Bitcoin because of optics. I co= mpletely object to that point continuing to be used.

On = Wed, Mar 30, 2022, 05:36 pushd via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote= :
> Any case where a flawed propos= al makes it through getting activation
parameters set and = released, but doesn't achieve supermajority hashpower
support is made worse by bip8/lot=3Dtrue in comparison to speedy trial.

- Flawed proposal making it = through activation is a failure of review process

- Supermajority hashpower percentage decided by bitcoin c= ore developers can choose to not follow old or new consensus rules at any p= oint

=
- Speedy trial makes it worse by misleading lot o= f bitcoin users including miners to consider signaling as voting and majori= ty votes decide if a soft fork gets activated

- BIP 8/LOT=3DTRUE keeps things simple. Miners need to = follow consensus rules as they do right now if they wish to mine blocks for= subsidy and fees.


Note: Mining pools or individ= ual miners can participate in soft fork discussions regardless of activatio= n method and share their concern which can be evaluated based on technical = merits.


pushd
---

parallel lines meet at infinity?
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoun= dation.org
https://l= ists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev


--000000000000b0b85f05db85663f--