MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAMZUoKkTDjDSgnqhYio8Lnh-yTdsNAdXbDC9RQwnN00RdbbL6w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CABm2gDrdoD3QZ=gZ_nd7Q+AZpetX32dLON7pfdC4aAwpLRd4xA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMZUoK=kpZZw++WmdRM0KTkj6dQhmtsanm9eH1TksNwypKS8Zw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGpPWDZWKF=r4fQP8+JSBaUHT9ZTFYn7RKUgApMx4sys6Cx7Xg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAGpPWDZWKF=r4fQP8+JSBaUHT9ZTFYn7RKUgApMx4sys6Cx7Xg@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?B?Sm9yZ2UgVGltw7Nu?= <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2022 12:32:24 +0100
Message-ID: <CABm2gDqWgqwaYRgY0HHMRw4W9C6T-i5zjzFawtU3Ys9UWZn-AQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Billy Tetrud <billy.tetrud@gmail.com>, 
 Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Speedy Trial
Precedence: list

On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 5:32 PM Billy Tetrud via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> I think involving users more in activation is a good avenue of thought fo=
r improving how bitcoin does soft forks. I also think the idea you brought =
up of some way for people to signal opposition is a good idea. I've suggest=
ed a mechanism for signature-based user polling, I've also suggested a mech=
anism where miners can actively signal for opposing a soft fork. It seems l=
ike there should be some common ground between us in those ideas. Where it =
seems we may perhaps unreconcilably disagree are that A. miners are users t=
oo and generally have interests that are important and different than most =
users, and giving them at least some mechanism to force discussion is appro=
priate, and B. chain splits are no joke and should almost never be possible=
 accidentally and therefore we should make a significant effort to avoid th=
em, which almost definitely means orderly coordination of miners.

Any user polling system is going to be vulnerable to sybil attacks.

> Do you have anything concrete you want to propose? An example mechanism? =
Are you simply here advocating your support for BIP8+LOT=3Dtrue?

Yes, I want BIP+LOT=3Dtrue (aka the original bip8).
I also want users to be easily able to coordinate resistance to any
given change, as I described in this thread and others and luke has
done many times.
I also generally oppose to speedy trial being used for any consensus
rule change deployment.

Imagine someone comes and proposes a block size increase through
extension block softfork.
Would you like them to use speedy trial or BIP8+LOT=3Dtrue for deployment?