Return-Path: Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org (smtp2.osuosl.org [140.211.166.133]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4920EC0012 for ; Thu, 31 Mar 2022 04:31:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21584403B3 for ; Thu, 31 Mar 2022 04:31:29 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.098 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: smtp2.osuosl.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp2.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zpbdycXsLsII for ; Thu, 31 Mar 2022 04:31:27 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 Received: from mail-ed1-x534.google.com (mail-ed1-x534.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::534]) by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 90F6E4014E for ; Thu, 31 Mar 2022 04:31:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ed1-x534.google.com with SMTP id a17so26763688edm.9 for ; Wed, 30 Mar 2022 21:31:27 -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=QTgXOjbCiZpNG1sQA0PxJIrEeGYdkEMcQgZOR3135e0=; b=nDKej7SGWq7P8jjTem++z9RTnzWif9IgEjlqzISXtYafYuKqwLOm2EMnuJ3VdTJwVx hXPOp9rGiEgBkfXOwYE2gS8QRwM8DfYxFRU18JTqQJX2TEKS7XB4qfWkyMYFF0x0IPeB r3h4dncDbg3J1tYPyiYDNNGJJe6sfYjkwnMk1+6tULw0c2awuSbTfHxZzrkdNxxjXEf0 PljWOaAel/rvGONAFMvqBBuZCXp2ubIFIdcHnja9ticWxNoQbnkvfiv+1g9FuoJ0m9QD CO0mlpsDijeB17tFwHXj0QehqhWUjG/3z4Z26Ax5IFHZOp4n6sjK/2Z0Qez8TAY2pVv3 ykgg== 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=QTgXOjbCiZpNG1sQA0PxJIrEeGYdkEMcQgZOR3135e0=; b=K+YT3Anjgy8hpzYnKI4D9bOJeT6wpO7urLLz0rGeh42WgWFEa81W1vn+QkRsFtPGjD FwqvMNsyuP8lbUeHBvMNzr8hH7IxYxJWwHD0Py7QWe+8RUwbGaf0n5Xp2UbXZFZeElrw H47/UC+H68SSofcCVXnafjUTuB/nO+Vw3OWJ5syLPaNQcYyuiHJpnMhqMsGCNYjOg2Ja iu1pMTEQAEDjo408cJviwed9qOdvQ+q2IZ/KHh+xVzXAJNxSJVwdRerz0VXL0+BIsji0 iO5e0AnffEOs1X09IGhRIJ3f56/f/YJf/8NePtHd5Jx73mfEUqg8vaC/R4e4pwYxJmts /Uaw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5320YPbDIh2/c5/iGpy/FLOAMrs7S5lST8l+VR0D69ox3zX02hee DKk7AhCfwVxCHpDSNACg+xx1ZZFoqeRGFgcchQax1KTs X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwFHuZFnFVYevehDSjHrcOjgHYkd4Za4mUTLWEP3oFnkEQR7uJ8ivF+GyYOW+GfFXZ+NgGNgk447EyByCd0vl8= X-Received: by 2002:a50:ec94:0:b0:419:75fa:f695 with SMTP id e20-20020a50ec94000000b0041975faf695mr14896612edr.355.1648701085611; Wed, 30 Mar 2022 21:31:25 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Billy Tetrud Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2022 23:31:09 -0500 Message-ID: To: pushd Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000008c7b7005db7c229a" X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 31 Mar 2022 07:41:18 +0000 Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion , Anthony Towns Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Speedy Trial 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, 31 Mar 2022 04:31:29 -0000 --0000000000008c7b7005db7c229a Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > Many users, miners and exchanges still think its voting Why do you care what they think? Why does it matter if they misunderstand? > it is not an imaginary group of people If the people aren't imaginary, then its their importance that's imaginary. > One example of a mining pool This isn't even sufficient evidence that they don't understand. Its quite possible they're using the word "voting" loosely or that they don't understand english very well. And again, so what if they tweet things that are not correctly worded? This is not a reason to change how we design bitcoin soft forks. Its not even wrong to say that a particular signaling round is very much like voting. What's wrong is saying that bitcoin upgrades are made if and only if miners vote to approve those changes. > I see a problem that exists You haven't convinced me this is a significant problem. What are the concrete downsides? Why do you think this can't be fixed by simple persistent explaining? You can find groups of people who misunderstand basically any aspect of bitcoin. The solution to people misunderstanding the design is never to change how bitcoin is designed. On Wed, Mar 30, 2022 at 4:14 PM pushd wrote: > > No it does not. This narrative is the worst. A bad explanation of > speedy trial can mislead people into thinking miner signalling is how > Bitcoin upgrades are voted in. But a bad explanation can explain anything > badly. > > I agree it is worst but why do you think this narrative exists? People > have tried explaining it. Many users, miners and exchanges still think its > voting. I think the problem is with activation method so BIP 8/LOT=TRUE is > a solution. > > > > The solution is not to change how we engineer soft forks, it's to > explain speedy trial better to this imaginary group of important people > that think miner signaling is voting. > > We can suggest different solutions but the problem exists and it is not an > imaginary group of people. > > One example of a mining pool: https://archive.ph/oyH04 > > > > We shouldn't change how we engineer Bitcoin because of optics. I > completely object to that point continuing to be used. > > Voting as described on wiki is quite similar to what happens during miners > signaling followed by activation if a certain threshold is reached. If some > participants in this process consider it voting instead of signaling for > readiness then listing advantages of a better activation method should help > everyone reading this thread/email. > > Sorry, I don't understand your objection. I see a problem that exists > since years and a better activation method fixes it. There are other > positives for using BIP 8/LOT=TRUE which I shared in > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-March/020178.html > > I will continue to discuss this problem with solutions until we use better > activation methods for future soft forks in any discussion about activation > methods. > > > pushd > --- > > parallel lines meet at infinity? > > ------- Original Message ------- > On Thursday, March 31st, 2022 at 1:40 AM, Billy Tetrud < > billy.tetrud@gmail.com> wrote: > > @Pushd > > > Speedy trial makes it worse by misleading lot of bitcoin users > including miners to consider signaling as voting and majority votes decide > if a soft fork gets activated > > No it does not. This narrative is the worst. A bad explanation of speedy > trial can mislead people into thinking miner signalling is how Bitcoin > upgrades are voted in. But a bad explanation can explain anything badly. > The solution is not to change how we engineer soft forks, it's to explain > speedy trial better to this imaginary group of important people that think > miner signaling is voting. > > We shouldn't change how we engineer Bitcoin because of optics. I > completely object to that point continuing to be used. > > On Wed, Mar 30, 2022, 05:36 pushd via bitcoin-dev < > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > >> > Any case where a flawed proposal makes it through getting activation >> parameters set and released, but doesn't achieve supermajority hashpower >> support is made worse by bip8/lot=true in comparison to speedy trial. >> >> - Flawed proposal making it through activation is a failure of review >> process >> >> - Supermajority hashpower percentage decided by bitcoin core developers >> can choose to not follow old or new consensus rules at any point >> >> - Speedy trial makes it worse by misleading lot of bitcoin users >> including miners to consider signaling as voting and majority votes decide >> if a soft fork gets activated >> >> - BIP 8/LOT=TRUE keeps things simple. Miners need to follow consensus >> rules as they do right now if they wish to mine blocks for subsidy and fees. >> >> >> Note: Mining pools or individual miners can participate in soft fork >> discussions regardless of activation method and share their concern which >> can be evaluated based on technical merits. >> >> >> pushd >> --- >> >> parallel lines meet at infinity? >> _______________________________________________ >> bitcoin-dev mailing list >> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org >> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >> > > --0000000000008c7b7005db7c229a Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>=C2=A0 Many users, miners and exc= hanges still think its voting

Why do you care what they think? Why does it matter if they misu= nderstand?

&g= t;=C2=A0it is not a= n imaginary group of people

If the people aren't imaginary, then its their importanc= e that's imaginary.

>=C2=A0One example of a mining pool

This isn't even sufficient evidence that they don'= ;t understand. Its quite possible they're using the word "voting&q= uot; loosely or that they don't understand english very well. And again= , so what if they tweet things that are not correctly worded? This is not a= reason to change how we design bitcoin soft=C2=A0forks.=C2=A0
=

Its not even wrong to say= that a particular signaling round is very much like voting. What's wro= ng is saying that bitcoin upgrades are made if and only if miners vote to a= pprove those changes.=C2=A0

>=C2=A0I see a problem that exists

You haven't convinced me this is a significant pro= blem. What are the concrete downsides? Why do you think this can't be f= ixed by simple persistent explaining? You can find groups of people who mis= understand basically any aspect of bitcoin. The solution to people misunder= standing the design is never to change how bitcoin is designed.


On = Wed, Mar 30, 2022 at 4:14 PM pushd <pushd@protonmail.com> wrote:
>=C2=A0No it does not. This narrative is the worst.= A bad explanation of speedy trial can mislead people into thinking miner s= ignalling is how Bitcoin upgrades are voted in. But a bad explanation can e= xplain anything badly.

I agree it is worst but why do you think this narrati= ve exists? People have tried explaining it. Many users, miners and exchange= s still think its voting. I think the problem is with activation method so = BIP 8/LOT=3DTRUE is a solution.


>=C2=A0The solution is not to c= hange how we engineer soft forks, it's to explain speedy trial better t= o this imaginary group of important people that think miner signaling is vo= ting.

We can suggest different solutions but = the problem exists and it is not an imaginary group of people.
=

One example of a mining pool:=C2=A0https://archive.ph/oyH04


>=C2=A0We shouldn't change how we = engineer Bitcoin because of optics. I completely object to that point conti= nuing to be used.

Voting = as described on wiki is quite similar to what happens during miners signali= ng followed by activation if a certain threshold is reached. If some partic= ipants in this process consider it voting instead of signaling for readines= s then listing advantages of a better activation method should help everyon= e reading this thread/email.

= Sorry, I don't understand your objection. I see a problem that exists s= ince years and a better activation method fixes it. There are other positiv= es for using BIP 8/LOT=3DTRUE which I shared in=C2=A0https://lists.linuxf= oundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2022-March/020178.html
=

I will continue to discuss this problem with= solutions until we use better activation methods for future soft forks in = any discussion about activation methods.


pushd
---

parallel lines meet at infinity?

------- Original Message -------
On Thursday, March 31st, 2022 at 1:40 AM, Billy Tetrud <billy.tetrud@gmail.com= > wrote:

@Pushd

> Speedy trial= makes it worse by misleading lot of bitcoin users including miners to cons= ider signaling as voting and majority votes decide if a soft fork gets acti= vated

No it does not. This narrative is the worst. A bad expla= nation of speedy trial can mislead people into thinking miner signalling is= how Bitcoin upgrades are voted in. But a bad explanation can explain anyth= ing badly. The solution is not to change how we engineer soft forks, it'= ;s to explain speedy trial better to this imaginary group of important peop= le that think miner signaling is voting.

We shouldn't change how we engineer Bitcoin because of optics. I co= mpletely object to that point continuing to be used.

On = Wed, Mar 30, 2022, 05:36 pushd via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
=
> Any case where a flawed proposal makes it= through getting activation
parameters set and released, b= ut doesn't achieve supermajority hashpower
support is= made worse by bip8/lot=3Dtrue in comparison to speedy trial.
<= div style=3D"font-family:arial;font-size:14px">
- Flawed proposal making it through a= ctivation is a failure of review process

- Supermajority hashpower percentage decided by bitcoin core devel= opers can choose to not follow old or new consensus rules at any point

- Speedy trial makes it worse by misleading lot of bitcoin= users including miners to consider signaling as voting and majority votes = decide if a soft fork gets activated

- BIP 8/LOT=3DTRUE keeps things simple. Miners need to follow co= nsensus rules as they do right now if they wish to mine blocks for subsidy = and fees.

<= /div>

Note: Mining pools or individual mine= rs can participate in soft fork discussions regardless of activation method= and share their concern which can be evaluated based on technical merits.<= /span>

<= /span>

pushd
---

parallel lines meet at infinity?
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org<= /a>
https://lists.linuxf= oundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

--0000000000008c7b7005db7c229a--