Return-Path: Received: from smtp3.osuosl.org (smtp3.osuosl.org [140.211.166.136]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 408C4C002C for ; Thu, 21 Apr 2022 06:20:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28058610E1 for ; Thu, 21 Apr 2022 06:20:30 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.098 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, BITCOIN_OBFU_SUBJ=1, 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_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: smtp3.osuosl.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from smtp3.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp3.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tp9N2ZLYLg5Z for ; Thu, 21 Apr 2022 06:20:29 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 Received: from mail-lf1-x12b.google.com (mail-lf1-x12b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::12b]) by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CF70B60A77 for ; Thu, 21 Apr 2022 06:20:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-lf1-x12b.google.com with SMTP id d6so6849512lfv.9 for ; Wed, 20 Apr 2022 23:20:28 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=GgTYdBlzyihQu9JzwVAUXfPweRQZtCfZWQo/WdC/lok=; b=Z2s84JFlatt25aon+o2GcmdJRP+fNtCfFlLuYJP3xLj4Js586CRA0lguwDPoIHxiQi JMHXXqYbDxDUsVMWGGiJOig4aftuhuTE2UECHnX5O+/O/0QFaUbNf15KtYfVbJdX1aI6 LtnKoGWYjuw+YHqFeNSvxmeD1A2Vzs/qiwlaR/GDd2Kxk2iHFQgqtMMrxs2w9wxraqku i7/zgxauhbQ8iNq9f+gQgFYNcxMGmRK5LMth+nWlqukqsr7zTX2ujVeNph9mQCJd04lH jfkKSiTX99lsR6VlMw9XoqGYljaqVQ9ZzYH+rJ0s+eyF7wwclG3U6/ROVKckHrW3AqVg QSMQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=GgTYdBlzyihQu9JzwVAUXfPweRQZtCfZWQo/WdC/lok=; b=d2P+SX356zhK71GFkzjYUgS4UVjSwWSNB+UKLkJarYyBVKTCnIEwqH+Qx+j92G+shG R5m9EFZvut29X1BKGslqIBXEa4z7B89kROhAElYA6w7G0xrgCx3YuXaq7vitBuWD6ayV 5Op6pY+8NTuUDjH//Tn+02DbUzBUmgamNpZm4e235/5dRBwv3tNtY+ZixDCvj2VWLnBk +Lziw62OQ+2bqI+pxnIL5LSgaIET1FnRxAXg4/f87Df+N0JQ8Qurxr2VQm2kB7i4Hkkp x/d41aWS+JYAU0Rj9IfOHfm7ItLpYfq1nx+Pp2AuswoVpse2ByFbcsulTeeQkn2FDPxA KDqg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532biUbR9Z7PUpZgg8rP9EQGWJNZW3tGXz+W1RNezLPNn/kC6adH vopF/Mp1qFflUB3DT4xmEAhN2rx6NvoLFAcMEJ0= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyM/rA5IatQZcBQskVZxUtFPDVzTYlcYkD3qFuIQaCmU3Xa1BlrlXvrRLbw4JMh1rIY9oeZFd1Mr6YLhhiPbCg= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6512:1112:b0:471:a77b:abe6 with SMTP id l18-20020a056512111200b00471a77babe6mr8362571lfg.262.1650522026656; Wed, 20 Apr 2022 23:20:26 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <64a34b4d46461da322be51b53ec2eb01@dtrt.org> <202204210205.47678.luke@dashjr.org> <202204210556.54781.luke@dashjr.org> In-Reply-To: <202204210556.54781.luke@dashjr.org> From: Jeremy Rubin Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2022 01:20:15 -0500 Message-ID: To: Luke Dashjr , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000017c76705dd241b60" Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Automatically reverting ("transitory") soft forks, e.g. for CTV 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: Thu, 21 Apr 2022 06:20:30 -0000 --00000000000017c76705dd241b60 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > While reverting Segwit wouldn't be possible, it IS entirely possible to do an > additional softfork to either weigh witness data at the full 4 WU/Byte rate > (same as other data), or to reduce the total weight limit so as to extend the > witness discount to non-segwit transactions (so scriptSig is similarly > discounted). What if I pre signed a transaction which was valid under the discounted weighting, but the increase in weight would make it invalid? This would serve to confiscate funds. Let's not do that. > Furthermore, the variant of Speedy Trial being used (AFAIK) is the BIP9 > variant which has no purpose other than to try to sabotage parallel UASF > efforts. Why didn't you upstream the code that was used for the actual activation into Bitcoin Core in the last year? In preparing it I just used what was available in Core now, surely the last year you could have gotten the appropriate patches done? -- @JeremyRubin On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 12:57 AM Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > On Thursday 21 April 2022 03:10:02 alicexbt wrote: > > @DavidHarding > > > > Interesting proposal to revert consensus changes. Is it possible to do > this > > for soft forks that are already activated? > > Generally, no. Reverting a softfork without a built-in expiry would be a > hardfork. > > > Example: Some users are not okay with witness discount in segwit > > transactions > > > > https://nitter.net/giacomozucco/status/1513614380121927682 > > While reverting Segwit wouldn't be possible, it IS entirely possible to do > an > additional softfork to either weigh witness data at the full 4 WU/Byte > rate > (same as other data), or to reduce the total weight limit so as to extend > the > witness discount to non-segwit transactions (so scriptSig is similarly > discounted). > > > @LukeDashjr > > > > > The bigger issue with CTV is the miner-decision route. Either CTV has > > > community support, or it doesn't. If it does, miners shouldn't have the > > > ability to veto it. If it doesn't, miners shouldn't have the ability to > > > activate it (making it a 51% attack more than a softfork). > > > > Agree. UASF client compatible with this speedy trial release for BIP 119 > > could be a better way to activate CTV. Users can decide if they prefer > > mining pools to make the decision for them or they want to enforce it > > irrespective of how many mining pools signal for it. I haven't seen any > > arguments against CTV from mining pools yet. > > We had that for Taproot, and now certain people are trying to say Speedy > Trial > activated Taproot rather than the BIP8 client, and otherwise creating > confusion and ambiguity. > > Furthermore, the variant of Speedy Trial being used (AFAIK) is the BIP9 > variant which has no purpose other than to try to sabotage parallel UASF > efforts. > > At this point, it is probably better for any Speedy Trial attempts to be > rejected by the community and fail outright. Perhaps even preparing a real > counter-softfork to invalidate blocks signalling for it. > > Luke > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > --00000000000017c76705dd241b60 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>=C2=A0While reverting= Segwit wouldn't be possible, it IS entirely possible to do an= =C2=A0
> additio= nal softfork to either weigh witness data at the full 4 WU/Byte rate= =C2=A0
> (same as = other data), or to reduce the total weight limit so as to extend the= =C2=A0
> witness d= iscount to non-segwit transactions (so scriptSig is similarly=C2=A0
> discounted).
<= div>
What if I pre signed= a transaction which was valid under the discounted weighting, but the incr= ease in weight would make it invalid? This would serve to confiscate funds.= Let's not do that.



<= span class=3D"gmail_default" style=3D"font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-seri= f;font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0)">> Furthermore, the variant of= Speedy Trial being used (AFAIK) is the BIP9=C2=A0
> variant which has no purpose other= than to try to sabotage parallel UASF=C2=A0
> efforts.

Why didn't you upstream the code that= was used for the actual activation into Bitcoin Core in the last year?

In preparing it I just used what was available in Core now, surely= the last year you could have gotten the appropriate patches done?


On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 12:57 AM Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev <bitc= oin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
= On Thursday 21 April 2022 03:10:02 alicexbt wrote:
> @DavidHarding
>
> Interesting proposal to revert consensus changes. Is it possible to do= this
> for soft forks that are already activated?

Generally, no. Reverting a softfork without a built-in expiry would be a hardfork.

> Example: Some users are not okay with witness discount in segwit
> transactions
>
> https://nitter.net/giacomozucco/statu= s/1513614380121927682

While reverting Segwit wouldn't be possible, it IS entirely possible to= do an
additional softfork to either weigh witness data at the full 4 WU/Byte rate=
(same as other data), or to reduce the total weight limit so as to extend t= he
witness discount to non-segwit transactions (so scriptSig is similarly
discounted).

> @LukeDashjr
>
> > The bigger issue with CTV is the miner-decision route. Either CTV= has
> > community support, or it doesn't. If it does, miners shouldn&= #39;t have the
> > ability to veto it. If it doesn't, miners shouldn't have = the ability to
> > activate it (making it a 51% attack more than a softfork).
>
> Agree. UASF client compatible with this speedy trial release for BIP 1= 19
> could be a better way to activate CTV. Users can decide if they prefer=
> mining pools to make the decision for them or they want to enforce it<= br> > irrespective of how many mining pools signal for it. I haven't see= n any
> arguments against CTV from mining pools yet.

We had that for Taproot, and now certain people are trying to say Speedy Tr= ial
activated Taproot rather than the BIP8 client, and otherwise creating
confusion and ambiguity.

Furthermore, the variant of Speedy Trial being used (AFAIK) is the BIP9 variant which has no purpose other than to try to sabotage parallel UASF efforts.

At this point, it is probably better for any Speedy Trial attempts to be rejected by the community and fail outright. Perhaps even preparing a real =
counter-softfork to invalidate blocks signalling for it.

Luke
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
= bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail= man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
--00000000000017c76705dd241b60--