MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <2941cf86-422f-6a88-fb44-9ac01c5e996a@chrisacheson.net>
References: <CAAS2fgRdSOu8N6L3+fBpnye+rM+W6+F=cePy=9oL4tJuCj=Jsw@mail.gmail.com>
	<E7A3E345-15C9-4C4C-B3D7-C75634243430@gmail.com>
	<CAAS2fgSXOkTcJ5tTssuGMCQwh-JFQTkzU5VBjaR+hKT+bD3Q6A@mail.gmail.com>
	<2941cf86-422f-6a88-fb44-9ac01c5e996a@chrisacheson.net>
From: Natanael <natanael.l@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2017 15:23:35 +0200
Message-ID: <CAAt2M19-R83VS2PB6ppjqSH4cSXT--5M=QxUFLpYDr8iMnpGpQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Chris Acheson <mail@chrisacheson.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c18881a339378054d34770b
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] I do not support the BIP 148 UASF
Precedence: list

--94eb2c18881a339378054d34770b
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Den 15 apr. 2017 13:51 skrev "Chris Acheson via bitcoin-dev" <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>:


Not sure if you missed my previous reply to you, but I'm curious about
your thoughts on this particular point. I contend that for any UASF,
orphaning non-signalling blocks on the flag date is [maybe] safer [for
those in on the UASF fork] than just
considering the fork active on the flag date.


Note my additions.

Enforcement by orphaning non-compliance makes it harder to reverse a buggy
softfork, since you necessarily increase the effort needed to return enough
mining power to the safe chain since you now have mostly unmonitored mining
hardware fighting you actively, whose operators you might not be able to
contact. You'd practically have to hardfork out of the situation.

There's also the risk of the activation itself triggering concensus bugs
(multiple incompatible UASF forks), if there's multiple implementations of
it in the network (or one buggy one). We have already seen something like
it happen. This can both happen on the miner side, client side or both
(miner side only would lead to a ton of orphaned blocks, client side means
netsplit).

It is also not economically favorable for any individual miner to be the
one to mine empty blocks on top of any surviving softfork-incompatible
chain. As a miner you would only volunteer to do it if you believe the
softfork is necessary or itself will enable greater future profit.

Besides that, I also just don't believe that UASF itself as a method to
activate softforks is a good choice. The only two reliable signals we have
for this purpose in Bitcoin are block height (flag day) and standard miner
signaling, as every other metric can be falsified or gamed.

But there's also more problems - a big one is that we have no way right now
for a node to tell another "the transaction you just relayed to me is
invalid according to an active softfork" (or "will become invalid". This
matters for several reasons.

The first one that came to my mind is that we have widespread usage of
zero-confirmation payments in the network.

This was already dangerous for other reasons, but this UASF could make it
guaranteed cost-free to exploit - because as many also know, we ALSO
already have a lot of nodes that do not enforce the non-default rejection
policies (otherwise we'd never see such transactions on blocks), including
many alternative Bitcoin clients.

The combination of these factors means that you can present an UASF invalid
transaction to a non-updated client that is supposedly protected by the
deliberate orphaning effort, and have it accept this as a payment. To never
see it get confirmed, or to eventually see it doublespent by an UASF-valid
transaction.

I would not at all be surprised if it turned out that many
zero-confirmation accepting services do not reject non-default
transactions, or if they aren't all UASF-segwit aware.

This is why a flag day or similar is more effective - it can't be ignored
unlike "just another one of those UASF proposals" that you might not have
evaluated or not expect to activate.

This is by the way also a reason that I believe that all nodes and services
should publish all concensus critical policies that they enforce. This
would make it far easier to alert somebody that they NEED TO prepare for
whatever proposal that might conflict with their active policies.

--94eb2c18881a339378054d34770b
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"auto"><div data-smartmail=3D"gmail_signature" dir=3D"auto"><br>=
</div><div class=3D"gmail_extra" dir=3D"auto"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote=
">Den 15 apr. 2017 13:51 skrev &quot;Chris Acheson via bitcoin-dev&quot; &l=
t;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@list=
s.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt;:<blockquote class=3D"quote" style=3D"margin:0=
 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class=3D"quoted=
-text">
<br>
</div>Not sure if you missed my previous reply to you, but I&#39;m curious =
about<br>
your thoughts on this particular point. I contend that for any UASF,<br>
orphaning non-signalling blocks on the flag date is [maybe] safer [for thos=
e in on the UASF fork] than just<br>
considering the fork active on the flag date.<br></blockquote></div></div><=
div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">Note my additions.=C2=A0</div>=
<div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">Enforcement by orphaning non-=
compliance makes it harder to reverse a buggy softfork, since you necessari=
ly increase the effort needed to return enough mining power to the safe cha=
in since you now have mostly unmonitored mining hardware fighting you activ=
ely, whose operators you might not be able to contact. You&#39;d practicall=
y have to hardfork out of the situation.=C2=A0</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br><=
/div><div dir=3D"auto">There&#39;s also the risk of the activation itself t=
riggering concensus bugs (multiple incompatible UASF forks), if there&#39;s=
 multiple implementations of it in the network (or one buggy one). We have =
already seen something like it happen. This can both happen on the miner si=
de, client side or both (miner side only would lead to a ton of orphaned bl=
ocks, client side means netsplit).=C2=A0</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><=
div dir=3D"auto">It is also not economically favorable for any individual m=
iner to be the one to mine empty blocks on top of any surviving softfork-in=
compatible chain. As a miner you would only volunteer to do it if you belie=
ve the softfork is necessary or itself will enable greater future profit.=
=C2=A0</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">Besides that, I a=
lso just don&#39;t believe that UASF itself as a method to activate softfor=
ks is a good choice. The only two reliable signals we have for this purpose=
 in Bitcoin are block height (flag day) and standard miner signaling, as ev=
ery other metric can be falsified or gamed.=C2=A0</div><div dir=3D"auto"><b=
r></div><div dir=3D"auto">But there&#39;s also more problems - a big one is=
 that we have no way right now for a node to tell another &quot;the transac=
tion you just relayed to me is invalid according to an active softfork&quot=
; (or &quot;will become invalid&quot;. This matters for several reasons.=C2=
=A0</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">The first one that c=
ame to my mind is that we have widespread usage of zero-confirmation paymen=
ts in the network.=C2=A0</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto"=
>This was already dangerous for other reasons, but this UASF could make it =
guaranteed cost-free to exploit - because as many also know, we ALSO alread=
y have a lot of nodes that do not enforce the non-default rejection policie=
s (otherwise we&#39;d never see such transactions on blocks), including man=
y alternative Bitcoin clients.=C2=A0</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div =
dir=3D"auto">The combination of these factors means that you can present an=
 UASF invalid transaction to a non-updated client that is supposedly protec=
ted by the deliberate orphaning effort, and have it accept this as a paymen=
t. To never see it get confirmed, or to eventually see it doublespent by an=
 UASF-valid transaction.=C2=A0</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D=
"auto">I would not at all be surprised if it turned out that many zero-conf=
irmation accepting services do not reject non-default transactions, or if t=
hey aren&#39;t all UASF-segwit aware.=C2=A0</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></di=
v><div dir=3D"auto">This is why a flag day or similar is more effective - i=
t can&#39;t be ignored unlike &quot;just another one of those UASF proposal=
s&quot; that you might not have evaluated or not expect to activate.=C2=A0<=
/div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">This is by the way also =
a reason that I believe that all nodes and services should publish all conc=
ensus critical policies that they enforce. This would make it far easier to=
 alert somebody that they NEED TO prepare for whatever proposal that might =
conflict with their active policies.=C2=A0</div></div>

--94eb2c18881a339378054d34770b--