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 C4AA2C0001 for ; Sun, 28 Feb 2021 14:12:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B345D4EE47 for ; Sun, 28 Feb 2021 14:12:36 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.001 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no 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 Nas9CYFf22KZ for ; Sun, 28 Feb 2021 14:12:35 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: delayed 00:05:25 by SQLgrey-1.8.0 Received: from mail-wm1-f52.google.com (mail-wm1-f52.google.com [209.85.128.52]) by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 835C149999 for ; Sun, 28 Feb 2021 14:12:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-wm1-f52.google.com with SMTP id u11so5841117wmq.5 for ; Sun, 28 Feb 2021 06:12:35 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=2Xa69/Sl5JZM851oMBWl9xp7h4rfeh7Mh3JBfd/dddo=; b=JCbF+2yQENWIynZk8ne1Bp4TxQ6OOECHHid2Kq8Y6BUtGMsJqg1lkqllEAVSJvo54h Nc2HbpcjiARlSvntlU1O0H4ohnV5zwJYkZPBq6DUlzo/rwdpZBSNiqn0u6FAKCcn47mM LqGiJZahPnPciLlDTyaOUDY/tXm6A5A4zqj5+PufUG0OZnAU4UuwpLVxTMxV/h07JJM2 C0+q1ccZHqKtdS0vBgOmv4hEE16U2ROjatYpQwCEYq7+tkSxXgxatOnW1EK5CFiCBYHE fnTSXeYIccfIBb41NBo4Lk4z3FMfHc0vUnBk9sX7XboNbJK81pDell9x1ARgi6ViQTDI u3lQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532oVAqMPdm4QPKwRxDuyrNVTX5xaV/TbzzFQqpsOCvzR3o+N4e8 gfgaiDR4Yb76GvjQoEp84kijdxE5l1/eU8SKbWLUZv+2McH8ENpD X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwE5eKOa6/GmmdHKS/4RPQIhq6D7ST1KwcMMp/8mqq7rdkE8a2ySuduwyUCMz3PVFZNCCyyGnpZD2hT2fCpXLc= X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:4eca:: with SMTP id g10mr11646573wmq.149.1614521229003; Sun, 28 Feb 2021 06:07:09 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <202102271755.02271.luke@dashjr.org> In-Reply-To: <202102271755.02271.luke@dashjr.org> From: Ryan Grant Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2021 14:06:42 +0000 Message-ID: To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion , Luke Dashjr Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Exploring alternative activation mechanisms: decreasing threshold 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, 28 Feb 2021 14:12:36 -0000 On Sat, Feb 27, 2021 at 5:55 PM Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev wrote: > This has the same problems BIP149 did: since there is no signalling, it is > ambiguous whether the softfork has activated at all. You only need to see one block in the heaviest valid chain to dissolve that ambiguity. There are a lot of volunteers in this space who would (collectively) commit a few block's worth of hashrate, to know. > Additionally, it loses the flexibility of BIP 8 to, after the initial > deployment, move the timeoutheight sooner. It doesn't interfere with concurrent UASFs using any combination of timeoutheights.