From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <zachgrw@gmail.com> Received: from smtp3.osuosl.org (smtp3.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::136]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBD6BC002C for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; Thu, 21 Apr 2022 12:49:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2DD160B5A for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; Thu, 21 Apr 2022 12:49:31 +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: smtp3.osuosl.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from smtp3.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp3.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id omYwVE12VagU for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; Thu, 21 Apr 2022 12:49:31 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 Received: from mail-il1-x136.google.com (mail-il1-x136.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::136]) by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1200860A77 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; Thu, 21 Apr 2022 12:49:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-il1-x136.google.com with SMTP id i8so2973473ila.5 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; Thu, 21 Apr 2022 05:49:30 -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; bh=YXOE0wGUndf08LbghYLD+5YowMXG15OG5uzXY4IAFOM=; b=Rt0RXKreyO+bRyNc4upsrVY74WuRIkmFbTRQ9S7ccwTiBzemOV2AcM3PnmliGSRxd3 VLmVA9FuHbf/7/oeO1HNmekqU2VuOHgJE0y1Mc8+NbpNeYoxxCCZ2IlFuMEAkpRcJ1Ch bphJtzO7cW2cBsu3BhNs13F0+10pQXpZNMiSyBONgLZDAC4M6BKvBfIxAqGGSlToqNFS Goeo1sP5QSkAQ+M7VVQ16lWoohnSd6cTGcoKksdvEsYF7v8OCYJBZdbzCXEhvjaqKMa8 qlNAjJWaH+YsHfd6p9oNvB4nHmErow/ZY4GMg12WzrQLDxh99aPPs1Qib1TUzqcRam/Z S0Lg== 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; bh=YXOE0wGUndf08LbghYLD+5YowMXG15OG5uzXY4IAFOM=; b=Y7RKHL7B0ODW+z/HxsPwAB5cgnuCTZg68KpcNhDZCQMn4+yRtZ2GwuNacO+5Z19SJH Ytryco4bRDWU9SWsILs0cHx7fqk3m06C1mtxr+tkQPdVKd9mh9z4ew2TjJhwYbnvua35 k6YKCj8R1h3FPZtLXLl/aqbOrgjSgKkHpVyxwIipp/JPPayU1VAVAzQWpdVLsV0JRgS9 a2fOOMS4sbWbMx++WlphGGTHqaZI37yI+GGfPRukbULIq3fL7fDqYZBYAudfIvjDP4to wjJMxP8VP8oJWJkKe8odDbnZQAytC8wnihKS6lOc0EUS0RZhQQD5BHApvuT87WBokndF hG5Q== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531FoQXuJP1L7EvS35ULhNPTAya5TyLjCr1RDEPyyIy3IPeY71q2 CFgUaIPSm/+Rj29gUHluPemXAH4+N8MlFZygJVZbYoHK X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyRrIHEIbNmYkCydRXk36V0xrcvxHttvX/uVwZ4I6i20fPsy8MerlBGomEclqIVw/Bxs84JD2dWu7agcE0cNRs= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6e02:1d04:b0:2cc:4c42:9b99 with SMTP id i4-20020a056e021d0400b002cc4c429b99mr5039485ila.168.1650545370083; Thu, 21 Apr 2022 05:49:30 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <CAD5xwhjVS4Y4e3qDWzJfva+0hiKpe8-WqmX_kUHrpfXmG5sMXw@mail.gmail.com> <uUzpB7Sapu5q3qxF7voLmwRIJfLPGCwcelhFVR8BClM7HBi9n86zj1A6SeYBdKZXOGL-8C049G1mEURDkyNMhksyPMfjIMPJXHoidOydAT8=@protonmail.com> In-Reply-To: <uUzpB7Sapu5q3qxF7voLmwRIJfLPGCwcelhFVR8BClM7HBi9n86zj1A6SeYBdKZXOGL-8C049G1mEURDkyNMhksyPMfjIMPJXHoidOydAT8=@protonmail.com> From: Zac Greenwood <zachgrw@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2022 14:49:19 +0200 Message-ID: <CAJ4-pEAsyeqq0wM7dJgbBb-RLKbgWpzuLikrBFBBMtz2zm4aCA@mail.gmail.com> To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>, Michael Folkson <michaelfolkson@protonmail.com> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000007834cb05dd298a98" X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 21 Apr 2022 13:00:43 +0000 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] 7 Theses on a next step for BIP-119 X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org> List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>, <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/> List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>, <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2022 12:49:32 -0000 --0000000000007834cb05dd298a98 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Wed, 20 Apr 2022 at 15:49, Michael Folkson via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: Assuming 90 percent of miners don't signal for it in one of the Speedy > Trial windows then the activation attempt will have failed and it will be > back in Jeremy's court whether he tries again with a different activation > attempt. > > Assuming 90 percent of miners do signal for it (unlikely in my opinion but > presumably still a possibility) then the CTV soft fork could activate > unless full nodes resist it. > This is wrong. Miners do not have the mandate to decide the faith of softforks. The MO of softforks is that once a softfork has been merged, it already has consensus and must be activated by miners eventually. The various activation methods exist to ensure miners cannot sabotage a softfork that has consensus. The way you phrase it, makes it sound like miners have any say over softforks. This is not the case. Zac > --0000000000007834cb05dd298a98 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <div><div dir=3D"auto">On Wed, 20 Apr 2022 at 15:49, Michael Folkson via bi= tcoin-dev <<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" targ= et=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>> wrote:<br></div= ><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div></div><div><div dir=3D"auto"><div class=3D"gma= il_quote"></div></div></div><div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D= "margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;pad= ding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204)"><div style=3D"font-family= :arial;font-size:14px"></div><div style=3D"font-family:arial;font-size:14px= ">Assuming 90 percent of miners don't signal for it in one of the Speed= y Trial windows then the activation attempt will have failed and it will be= back in Jeremy's court whether he tries again with a different activat= ion attempt.<br></div><div style=3D"font-family:arial;font-size:14px"><br><= /div><div style=3D"font-family:arial;font-size:14px">Assuming 90 percent of= miners do signal for it (unlikely in my opinion but presumably still a pos= sibility) then the CTV soft fork could activate unless full nodes resist it= .</div></blockquote><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div></div><div><div dir=3D"auto= ">This is wrong. Miners do not have the mandate to decide the faith of soft= forks. The MO of softforks is that once a softfork has been merged, it alre= ady has consensus and must be activated by miners eventually. The various a= ctivation methods exist to ensure miners cannot sabotage a softfork that ha= s consensus.</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">The way you= phrase it, makes it sound like miners have any say over softforks. This is= not the case.</div></div><div><div dir=3D"auto"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"= ><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">Zac</div><blockquote class= =3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;bo= rder-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204)">= <div style=3D"font-family:arial;font-size:14px" dir=3D"auto"> </div></block= quote></div></div> </div> --0000000000007834cb05dd298a98--