From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org (smtp1.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::138]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D2C3C0032 for ; Sun, 20 Aug 2023 17:46:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4197581DF3 for ; Sun, 20 Aug 2023 17:46:14 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp1.osuosl.org 4197581DF3 Authentication-Results: smtp1.osuosl.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=protonmail.com header.i=@protonmail.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=protonmail3 header.b=iT+qrCrh X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.3 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.3 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H5=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, SUBJ_ALL_CAPS=0.5] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp1.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0MJMPAzpv2RH for ; Sun, 20 Aug 2023 17:46:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-4318.protonmail.ch (mail-4318.protonmail.ch [185.70.43.18]) by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F38D181DEE for ; Sun, 20 Aug 2023 17:46:11 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp1.osuosl.org F38D181DEE Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2023 17:46:01 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com; s=protonmail3; t=1692553568; x=1692812768; bh=4/yjY5ytX+PlpSp2a94Sbl6vSAorveeLOh+VmPo+zWE=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Message-ID:Feedback-ID:From:To:Cc:Date: Subject:Reply-To:Feedback-ID:Message-ID:BIMI-Selector; b=iT+qrCrhfikdQ+wP9ldIQEiue9g7ueb8uCBK1ounw6GDqOPDizzyQbBMA1e7mHKhq 9zt7coG4512swQuDEnJdyG3cEGkFnCGeKnRs2ngOm1RQvUIhSsuUYjXPI3aQl+J6Kg P4tVf0TqBkvik9Dd680ESpiXO/ah7ssEQu2C9qpPibcsRdJ2M11aIwgavfXN+A6/Sn T+yFGZmkqXrNLtSUxu79xAMe5aVCQNHQLv67hg6o1Nrquj9pS/wY+16MRKXWkHxxjR uhw/u4AOyGd28Qiff9CAo0Pr1zZbsL/WtfUgZLmvDjdCn/octXUxalI01STqO3tmoE gLBtk1/ht1I/A== To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion From: alicexbt Message-ID: Feedback-ID: 40602938:user:proton MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 21 Aug 2023 00:12:10 +0000 Subject: [bitcoin-dev] BIP-119 UASF 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, 20 Aug 2023 17:46:14 -0000 Hi Bitcoin Developers, Note: This email is inspired from https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/piperma= il/bitcoin-dev/2021-March/018538.html written by Chris Belcher Lets compare all covenant proposals: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1YL5ttNb6-SHS6-C8-1tHwao1_19zNQ-31YW= PAHDZgfo/edit#gid=3D0 Why general and recursive covenants are controversial: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-February/01997= 6.html Why I prefer CTV over APO? - LN symmetry can be achieved with CSFS later if there is really a demand a= part from twitter - CTV improves LN - CTV does not change how sighash works still we get covenants - Less bytes - More tooling - Not recursive - Not limited to taproot - Other differences MASF or speedy trial allows miners to coordinate and signal "readiness". Th= is is misunderstood by lot of users as miners can always refuse to follow n= ew consensus rules even after signaling or economics nodes can reject block= s with new consensus rules later. Instead of doing this we could do a UASF in which things are clear that eco= nomic nodes enforce consensus rules and miners or majority of miners at thi= s point wont go against bitcoin communities including nodes with some econo= mic activity. If there is a positive feedback, we could work on building UASF client for = activation and bitcoin core can follow. /dev/fd0 floppy disk guy