diff options
author | Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org> | 2017-05-13 00:49:33 +0000 |
---|---|---|
committer | bitcoindev <bitcoindev@gnusha.org> | 2017-05-13 00:50:22 +0000 |
commit | c750690288699a191306931eeed7aea28e496e23 (patch) | |
tree | 7781b422e089f02055e7c230cffb9b16347476a1 | |
parent | bef7817807976b9094cd45e53cdcfa050a93055d (diff) | |
download | pi-bitcoindev-c750690288699a191306931eeed7aea28e496e23.tar.gz pi-bitcoindev-c750690288699a191306931eeed7aea28e496e23.zip |
Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP: Block signal enforcement via tx fees
-rw-r--r-- | 27/e781bc1a978792b9162eb9a4953971a456e1b0 | 94 |
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 + |