From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1YqTfk-0003CL-Rn for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 07 May 2015 21:49:36 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.217.179 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.217.179; envelope-from=pieter.wuille@gmail.com; helo=mail-lb0-f179.google.com; Received: from mail-lb0-f179.google.com ([209.85.217.179]) by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1YqTfj-00076K-I4 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 07 May 2015 21:49:36 +0000 Received: by lbbqq2 with SMTP id qq2so40828579lbb.3 for ; Thu, 07 May 2015 14:49:29 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.152.224.164 with SMTP id rd4mr498278lac.77.1431035369191; Thu, 07 May 2015 14:49:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.112.19.7 with HTTP; Thu, 7 May 2015 14:49:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.112.19.7 with HTTP; Thu, 7 May 2015 14:49:28 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20150507214200.GJ63100@giles.gnomon.org.uk> References: <20150507200023.GI63100@giles.gnomon.org.uk> <20150507214200.GJ63100@giles.gnomon.org.uk> Date: Thu, 7 May 2015 23:49:28 +0200 Message-ID: From: Pieter Wuille To: Roy Badami Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11340bf2d77cbd051584e2f3 X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (pieter.wuille[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature X-Headers-End: 1YqTfj-00076K-I4 Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Mechanics of a hard fork X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 May 2015 21:49:36 -0000 --001a11340bf2d77cbd051584e2f3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 I would not modify my node if the change introduced a perpetual 100 BTC subsidy per block, even if 99% of miners went along with it. A hardfork is safe when 100% of (economically relevant) users upgrade. If miners don't upgrade at that point, they just lose money. This is why a hashrate-triggered hardfork does not make sense. Either you believe everyone will upgrade anyway, and the hashrate doesn't matter. Or you are not certain, and the fork is risky, independent of what hashrate upgrades. And the march 2013 fork showed that miners upgrade at a different schedule than the rest of the network. On May 7, 2015 5:44 PM, "Roy Badami" wrote: > > > On the other hand, if 99.99% of the miners updated and only 75% of > > merchants and 75% of users updated, then that would be a serioud split of > > the network. > > But is that a plausible scenario? Certainly *if* the concensus rules > required a 99% supermajority of miners for the hard fork to go ahead, > then there would be absoltely no rational reason for merchants and > users to refuse to upgrade, even if they don't support the changes > introduces by the hard fork. Their only choice, if the fork succeeds, > is between the active chain and the one that is effectively stalled - > and, of course, they can make that choice ahead of time. > > roy > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > One dashboard for servers and applications across Physical-Virtual-Cloud > Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications > Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable Insights > Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing using APM Insight. > http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y > _______________________________________________ > Bitcoin-development mailing list > Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development > --001a11340bf2d77cbd051584e2f3 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I would not modify my node if the change introduced a perpet= ual 100 BTC subsidy per block, even if 99% of miners went along with it.

A hardfork is safe when 100% of (economically relevant) user= s upgrade. If miners don't upgrade at that point, they just lose money.=

This is why a hashrate-triggered hardfork does not make sens= e. Either you believe everyone will upgrade anyway, and the hashrate doesn&= #39;t matter. Or you are not certain, and the fork is risky, independent of= what hashrate upgrades.

And the march 2013 fork showed that miners upgrade at a diff= erent schedule than the rest of the network.

On May 7, 2015 5:44 PM, "Roy Badami" &= lt;roy@gnomon.org.uk> wrote:

> On the other hand, if 99.99% of the miners updated and only 75% of
> merchants and 75% of users updated, then that would be a serioud split= of
> the network.

But is that a plausible scenario?=A0 Certainly *if* the concensus rules
required a 99% supermajority of miners for the hard fork to go ahead,
then there would be absoltely no rational reason for merchants and
users to refuse to upgrade, even if they don't support the changes
introduces by the hard fork.=A0 Their only choice, if the fork succeeds, is between the active chain and the one that is effectively stalled -
and, of course, they can make that choice ahead of time.

roy

---------------------------------------------------------------------------= ---
One dashboard for servers and applications across Physical-Virtual-Cloud Widest out-of-the-box monitoring support with 50+ applications
Performance metrics, stats and reports that give you Actionable Insights Deep dive visibility with transaction tracing using APM Insight.
http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/290420510;117567292;y
_______________________________________________
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-develo= pment@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-de= velopment
--001a11340bf2d77cbd051584e2f3--