public inbox for bitcoindev@googlegroups.com
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Thomas Kerin <me@thomaskerin.io>
To: Tom Zander <tomz@freedommail.ch>,
	Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
	<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP proposal: Generalized version bits voting (bip-genvbvoting)
Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2017 16:09:59 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <FE6D0125-951A-47D6-A2E4-C161DCB56804@thomaskerin.io> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <2796215.bJP4rN4KYZ@strawberry>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1203 bytes --]

A schism is just that: miners can't ameliorate a HF transition in the way they can censor transactions without permission. This is how miners became a convenient way to activate soft-forks. 

So while BIP9 can indicate the later censorship (a soft fork) in a way that nodes can follow (or not) a hardfork always requires nodes to upgrade to the version increasing the degrees of freedom of the system. 

Signaling is less useful here: the change is not opt-in and will require coordination; and the continuation of the chain thereafter depends on people actually running the hard-fork code, not just being aware there is something happening.


On 04/05/2017 12:08 PM, Tom Zander via bitcoin-dev wrote:

On Tuesday, 4 April 2017 20:01:51 CEST Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev wrote: 

BIP 9 provides a mechanism for having miners coordinate softforks because they can make the upgrade process smoother this way. But the same is not true of hardforks: miners are essentially irrelevant to them, and cannot make the process any smoother. 

Can you explain how miners are irrelevant if the upgrade is not a soft fork? 



-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1279 bytes --]

  reply	other threads:[~2017-04-05 14:18 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-04-03  9:06 [bitcoin-dev] BIP proposal: Generalized version bits voting (bip-genvbvoting) Sancho Panza
2017-04-04 11:16 ` Tom Zander
2017-04-04 16:41   ` Sancho Panza
2017-04-04 16:49   ` Sancho Panza
2017-04-04 18:01 ` Luke Dashjr
2017-04-04 19:28   ` Sancho Panza
2017-04-05 10:08   ` Tom Zander
2017-04-05 14:09     ` Thomas Kerin [this message]
2017-04-08 21:58       ` Sancho Panza

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=FE6D0125-951A-47D6-A2E4-C161DCB56804@thomaskerin.io \
    --to=me@thomaskerin.io \
    --cc=bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=tomz@freedommail.ch \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox