summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorLuke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org>2017-05-13 00:49:33 +0000
committerbitcoindev <bitcoindev@gnusha.org>2017-05-13 00:50:22 +0000
commitc750690288699a191306931eeed7aea28e496e23 (patch)
tree7781b422e089f02055e7c230cffb9b16347476a1
parentbef7817807976b9094cd45e53cdcfa050a93055d (diff)
downloadpi-bitcoindev-c750690288699a191306931eeed7aea28e496e23.tar.gz
pi-bitcoindev-c750690288699a191306931eeed7aea28e496e23.zip
Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP: Block signal enforcement via tx fees
-rw-r--r--27/e781bc1a978792b9162eb9a4953971a456e1b094
1 files changed, 94 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/27/e781bc1a978792b9162eb9a4953971a456e1b0 b/27/e781bc1a978792b9162eb9a4953971a456e1b0
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..dbf6a072c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/27/e781bc1a978792b9162eb9a4953971a456e1b0
@@ -0,0 +1,94 @@
+Return-Path: <luke@dashjr.org>
+Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
+ [172.17.192.35])
+ by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EBB74721
+ for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
+ Sat, 13 May 2017 00:50:22 +0000 (UTC)
+X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
+Received: from zinan.dashjr.org (zinan.dashjr.org [192.3.11.21])
+ by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BD6316D
+ for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
+ Sat, 13 May 2017 00:50:22 +0000 (UTC)
+Received: from ishibashi.localnet (unknown
+ [IPv6:2001:470:5:265:a45d:823b:2d27:961c])
+ (Authenticated sender: luke-jr)
+ by zinan.dashjr.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7CAE038A0081;
+ Sat, 13 May 2017 00:49:35 +0000 (UTC)
+X-Hashcash: 1:25:170513:pete@petertodd.org::Eq5jg2GO8aMg+1mk:dz05X
+X-Hashcash: 1:25:170513:ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com::kRfJCP5TR+05d3wy:=xVz
+X-Hashcash: 1:25:170513:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org::tj+871Aon8g8EkYy:sBse
+From: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org>
+To: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>,
+ ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
+Date: Sat, 13 May 2017 00:49:33 +0000
+User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/4.9.16-gentoo; KDE/4.14.29; x86_64; ; )
+References: <201705121922.57445.luke@dashjr.org>
+ <20170512222214.GA4462@fedora-23-dvm>
+In-Reply-To: <20170512222214.GA4462@fedora-23-dvm>
+X-PGP-Key-Fingerprint: E463 A93F 5F31 17EE DE6C 7316 BD02 9424 21F4 889F
+X-PGP-Key-ID: BD02942421F4889F
+X-PGP-Keyserver: hkp://pgp.mit.edu
+MIME-Version: 1.0
+Content-Type: Text/Plain;
+ charset="iso-8859-15"
+Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
+Message-Id: <201705130049.33798.luke@dashjr.org>
+X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,
+ RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
+X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
+ smtp1.linux-foundation.org
+Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
+Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP: Block signal enforcement via tx fees
+X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
+X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
+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: Sat, 13 May 2017 00:50:23 -0000
+
+On Friday 12 May 2017 10:22:14 PM Peter Todd wrote:
+> nVersion signaling is already technically unenforceable, in the sense that
+> we don't have good ways of ensuring miners actually adopt the rules
+> they're claiming to signal. Equally, it's users who ultimately adopt
+> rules, not miners, and attempting to pay miners to signal certain bits
+> will further confuse this point.
+
+This BIP doesn't change that. Enforcement remains primarily by users.
+
+> Quite likely the outcome of users trying to anonymously pay anonymous
+> miners to signal certain bits will be the complete breakdown of the
+> honesty of the nVersion signalling system, currently enforced only by
+> "gentlemans agreement".
+
+You assume users will pay for signalling of softforks prematurely. So long as
+it waits until deployment of the softfork is widespread, this risk is minimal.
+At worst, it creates risks similar to a UASF. So long as UASF is the
+alternative, this way seems strictly better.
+
+> Also, as an aside, this "specification" again shows the inadequacy and
+> unreadability of English language specifications. I'd strongly suggest you
+> delete it and instead mark the "reference implementation" as the
+> specification.
+
+How so?
+
+On Friday 12 May 2017 10:17:30 PM ZmnSCPxj wrote:
+> Minor editorial nitpick, this paragraph is repeated, maybe one of these
+> should be Testnet?
+>
+> For Bitcoin '''mainnet''', the BIP8 '''starttime''' will be TBD (Epoch
+> timestamp TBD) and BIP8 '''timeout''' will be TBD (Epoch timestamp TBD).
+>
+> For Bitcoin '''mainnet''', the BIP8 '''starttime''' will be TBD (Epoch
+> timestamp TBD) and BIP8 '''timeout''' will be TBD (Epoch timestamp TBD).
+
+Fixed, thanks.
+
+Luke
+