diff options
| author | Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com> | 2021-03-04 10:25:41 +0100 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | bitcoindev <bitcoindev@gnusha.org> | 2021-03-04 11:06:13 +0000 |
| commit | 23d53e44011fdcb5c8a9706ae173b12ef6101e7c (patch) | |
| tree | c616959213dcae5d0c2832e2212222847ddb4237 | |
| parent | c80956b90344102319420ac67fbde543bafd3af3 (diff) | |
| download | pi-bitcoindev-23d53e44011fdcb5c8a9706ae173b12ef6101e7c.tar.gz pi-bitcoindev-23d53e44011fdcb5c8a9706ae173b12ef6101e7c.zip | |
Re: [bitcoin-dev] activation mechanism considerations
| -rw-r--r-- | 1e/631409fb741d89bc0eb58453261026d03997c0 | 210 |
1 files changed, 210 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/1e/631409fb741d89bc0eb58453261026d03997c0 b/1e/631409fb741d89bc0eb58453261026d03997c0 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..610ad9973 --- /dev/null +++ b/1e/631409fb741d89bc0eb58453261026d03997c0 @@ -0,0 +1,210 @@ +Return-Path: <melvincarvalho@gmail.com> +Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org (smtp4.osuosl.org [140.211.166.137]) + by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1E78C0001 + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Thu, 4 Mar 2021 11:06:13 +0000 (UTC) +Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) + by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C89B74EBD4 + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Thu, 4 Mar 2021 11:06:13 +0000 (UTC) +X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org +X-Spam-Flag: NO +X-Spam-Score: -0.199 +X-Spam-Level: +X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 + tests=[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_PASS=-0.001] + autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no +Authentication-Results: smtp4.osuosl.org (amavisd-new); + dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com +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 96XZPOurHjhC + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Thu, 4 Mar 2021 11:06:12 +0000 (UTC) +X-Greylist: delayed 00:38:11 by SQLgrey-1.8.0 +Received: from mail-io1-xd31.google.com (mail-io1-xd31.google.com + [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d31]) + by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2F9654D10E + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Thu, 4 Mar 2021 11:06:12 +0000 (UTC) +Received: by mail-io1-xd31.google.com with SMTP id u8so29176373ior.13 + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Thu, 04 Mar 2021 03:06:12 -0800 (PST) +DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; + h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; + bh=EBprI8bu507DT7oNwYm/DRAQEWBOqf0M1hnGjnn8UY4=; + b=l3uUvtZLbqYo8Jc2FkKf1ha/vsm4YJW9JfBpm/Dhv+Maaf5J7hpIpLXCmLovSnMGq4 + LQFjm7Y9JWjtJXjZiEcSaXUlKW6jBneAJLqzidw/D/zXX8e5g3rJHI+LJqtzzkbgFTE6 + YXXUK4KrBeYkxIXMRVpjmsgQfPr69tCTueWMEwvgChIWWDwls0OkAnpX3bA2N2zXYXzV + SDuWqte7W3LVrJoWusVfFKX3aDLE+u/1MWm6JqDQ78QecK2aaAfredztUIAGieaURnDC + gv5T42lHcKtV1QGlxL04L2GaFtfNnNRhe5/P9cl7i4prQoaYYVh7pT9hRvGF+7DtiAqv + 0mag== +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=EBprI8bu507DT7oNwYm/DRAQEWBOqf0M1hnGjnn8UY4=; + b=oXoebJfBVQqOxrC3qvaHnkz7qS7MjxT7DZqhpMsPdP9vGbpjd9G+q4gkOCMvIv+/X2 + QFgsjA8xmR9fgVfLo2+Q1KdMpfqfexd/neHoMrPkUSPsKjEW6tDAJZ4T/ptXJxplViDB + OqOpajXWLdsRkS9CHPRghsIJ/Jki2QUG3Yp2kMmWLQr7p3EWhTTpVHDyRedYaQ5GVnZH + GoolCbR6MTctCS1T0L8H/vkL1dDUhwq+lu6qyDNbaivm+QoNTRFsFPEUfrJiQS1W9+Uv + ARmY7sRl33ZPrnXx4qFQICU5F/bnloW7CWsHXFlDHqB9/0Zl3JWq+JxKO/5wyC6UoMFb + Gu1w== +X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533PsSS9MgILkG4A5jC461ynswED6WDJnwzEhx7IX6wVbGlvHmCk + dU/yfEEuEi6rpJcKbtTUPq40TmtcvEdlOtgeJ9f8uzut4vM= +X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJz441EA8furdQOYpaxQ2dQ6tm4JDApwyxWy26QVT02tHI9Awax17c4MHEssfxHfID+Nr8ltUaED3rkwrUK6okk= +X-Received: by 2002:a5d:9644:: with SMTP id d4mr2858297ios.54.1614849952946; + Thu, 04 Mar 2021 01:25:52 -0800 (PST) +MIME-Version: 1.0 +References: <CAJXtxW=Rix7Q-ra=CADsB00r13pr5DC_76QMGcYrt74FxAWEbQ@mail.gmail.com> +In-Reply-To: <CAJXtxW=Rix7Q-ra=CADsB00r13pr5DC_76QMGcYrt74FxAWEbQ@mail.gmail.com> +From: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com> +Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2021 10:25:41 +0100 +Message-ID: <CAKaEYhKszo_0KHdMzmFtBVO2sL5Bh382e+koAL-0KMEtR29Opg@mail.gmail.com> +To: John Rand <johnqrand@gmail.com>, + Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> +Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000cf9e0605bcb28d12" +X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 04 Mar 2021 11:23:13 +0000 +Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] activation mechanism considerations +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, 04 Mar 2021 11:06:14 -0000 + +--000000000000cf9e0605bcb28d12 +Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" + +On Thu, 4 Mar 2021 at 10:07, John Rand via bitcoin-dev < +bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: + +> Consensus is important for both taproot and separately for the activation +> mechanism. There are more soft-forks that Bitcoin will need, so it is +> important to achieve positive progress on the activation topic also, not +> get impatient and rush something ill-considered. Not all future soft-forks +> maybe as widely supported as taproot, and yet it could become existentially +> critical that Bitcoin prevails in achieving a future upgrade in dramatic +> circumstances, even against powerful interests counter to Bitcoin user and +> investors interests. We should treat the activation topic in a considered +> way and with decorum, provide tight non-emotive reasoning devoid of +> frustration and impatience. This is a low drama and convenient time to +> incrementally improve activation. People have varied views about the +> deciding factor, or even which factors resulted in segwit activating after +> BIP 141 failed using BIP 9. We do not have to solve everything in one +> step, incremental improvement is good, for complex unintuitive topics, to +> learn as we go - and it should not be hard to do less badly than what +> transpired leading up to BIP 148 and BIP 91. Failure to upgrade if +> permanent, or demoralizing to protocol researchers could be a systemic risk +> in itself as there are more upgrades Bitcoin will need. We are not Ents +> but we should use our collective ingenuity to find an incremental +> improvement for activation. +> + +Great high level thoughts + +The Ents themselves were created in Tolkien's fork of Shakespeare, when he +was frustrated to learn that trees didnt actually march :) + +Having followed standards for 10+ years consensus can be tricky + +IIRC last time with segwit there was a straw poll in the wiki where devs +could express leanings in an informal, async way. Something like that +could be of value. + +There's an insightful spec written at the IETF "On Consensus and Humming in +the IETF", then IMHO is worth reading + +https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7282 + +That said, if we could find an incorruptible machine that could gather the +highest fee tx from the mempool and post it every 10 minutes, bitcoin would +largely run itself. So, while understanding the gravity of each change, we +could perhaps have the mindset that there are a finite number, such that +when complete bitcoin will move to an endgame where for the user it 'just +works', much like the internet. If devs and changes are needed less, that +could be viewed as a sign of success. This is a hand wavy way of saying +that forks could potentially be a diminishing issue over time + +Just my 2 satoshis + + +> +> John R +> _______________________________________________ +> bitcoin-dev mailing list +> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org +> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev +> + +--000000000000cf9e0605bcb28d12 +Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" +Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable + +<div dir=3D"ltr"><div dir=3D"ltr"><br></div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">= +<div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Thu, 4 Mar 2021 at 10:07, John Ran= +d via bitcoin-dev <<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.o= +rg">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquo= +te class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px = +solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr">Consensus is impo= +rtant for both taproot and separately for the activation mechanism.=C2=A0 T= +here are more soft-forks that Bitcoin will need, so it is important to achi= +eve positive progress on the activation topic also, not get impatient and r= +ush something ill-considered.=C2=A0 Not all future soft-forks maybe as wide= +ly supported as taproot, and yet it could become existentially critical tha= +t Bitcoin prevails in achieving a future upgrade in dramatic circumstances,= + even against powerful interests counter to Bitcoin user and investors inte= +rests.=C2=A0 We should treat the activation topic in a considered way and w= +ith decorum, provide tight non-emotive reasoning devoid of frustration and = +impatience.=C2=A0 This is a low drama and convenient time to incrementally = +improve activation.=C2=A0 People have varied views about the deciding facto= +r, or even which factors resulted in segwit activating after BIP 141 failed= + using BIP 9.=C2=A0 We do not have to solve everything in one step, increme= +ntal improvement is good, for complex unintuitive topics, to learn as we go= + - and it should not be hard to do less badly than what transpired leading = +up to BIP 148 and BIP 91.=C2=A0 Failure to upgrade if permanent, or demoral= +izing to protocol researchers could be a systemic risk in itself as there a= +re more upgrades Bitcoin will need.=C2=A0 We are not Ents but we should use= + our collective ingenuity to find an incremental improvement for activation= +.</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Great high level thoughts</div><div= +><br></div><div>The Ents themselves were created in Tolkien's fork of S= +hakespeare, when he was frustrated to learn that trees didnt actually march= + :)<br></div><div><br></div><div>Having followed standards for 10+ years co= +nsensus can be tricky</div><div><br></div><div>IIRC last time with segwit t= +here was a straw poll in the wiki where devs could express leanings in an i= +nformal, async way.=C2=A0 Something like that could be of value.<br></div><= +div><br></div><div>There's an insightful spec written at the IETF "= +;On Consensus and Humming in the IETF", then IMHO is worth reading<br>= +</div><div><br></div><div><a href=3D"https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7282">h= +ttps://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7282</a></div><div><br></div><div>That said, = +if we could find an incorruptible machine that could gather the highest fee= + tx from the mempool and post it every 10 minutes, bitcoin would largely ru= +n itself.=C2=A0 So, while understanding the gravity of each change, we coul= +d perhaps have the mindset that there are a finite number, such that when c= +omplete bitcoin will move to an endgame where for the user it 'just wor= +ks', much like the internet.=C2=A0 If devs and changes are needed less,= + that could be viewed as a sign of success.=C2=A0 This is a hand wavy way o= +f saying that forks could potentially be a diminishing issue over time<br><= +/div><div><br></div><div>Just my 2 satoshis<br></div><div>=C2=A0</div><bloc= +kquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:= +1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div><div><br= +></div></div><div>John R</div></div> +_______________________________________________<br> +bitcoin-dev mailing list<br> +<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">= +bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br> +<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" = +rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail= +man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br> +</blockquote></div></div> + +--000000000000cf9e0605bcb28d12-- + |