Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2019 12:06:50 -0400
From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
To: John Newbery <john@johnnewbery.com>,
	Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Message-ID: <20190816160650.artngylrzy2id5tr@petertodd.org>
References: <CAFmfg2tv4AP6GYSeHkgOYBKiWa3ia_KxWWBBjqY5u4-GkW6oLw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="r7bp4rsr3tgacgpj"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAFmfg2tv4AP6GYSeHkgOYBKiWa3ia_KxWWBBjqY5u4-GkW6oLw@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2)
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Burying CSV and segwit soft fork activations
Precedence: list


--r7bp4rsr3tgacgpj
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 11:23:37AM -0400, John Newbery via bitcoin-dev wrot=
e:
> Once a consensus change has been activated and buried by sufficient work,
> we consider the height of that change to be historic fact. The exact
> activation method is no longer of practical interest. In some cases the
> cause of activation is not even decidable. For example, we know that segw=
it
> activated at height 481,824 but it's debatable whether that was due to BIP
> 9 version bits signaling, BIP 148 UASF, or a combination of the two.

I just wanted to elaborate on this excellent point:

This is debatable because Bitcoin is a decentralized, soft-forks are backwa=
rds
compatible, and it's very difficult if not impossible to measure the
preferences of economically significant nodes. Both the BIP9 version bits
signalling and the BIP 148 UASF had the same basic effect: enforce segwit.
Furthermore, the BIP 148 UASF rejected blocks that didn't signal via the BI=
P9
version bits.

We can observe the fact that 100% of known blocks produced after Aug 1st 20=
17
have complied with segwit rules, and the BIP9 signalling protocol for segwi=
t.
But strictly speaking we don't really know why that happened. It's possible
that miners were running the BIP9 signalling Bitcoin Core release around th=
at
time. It's also possible that miners were running UASF enforcing software.
It's possible there was a combination of both. Or even entirely different
software - remember that some miners produced segwit-valid blocks, but didn=
't
actually mine segwit transactions. Each scenario leads to the same external=
ly
observable outcome.

Furthermore there's the question as to why miners were producing
segwit-compliant blocks: perhaps they thought the vast majority of economic=
ally
significant nodes would reject their blocks? Perhaps they just wanted to
enforce segwit?

These are all questions that have plausible answers, backed by evidence and
argument. But because Bitcoin is a decentralized network no authority can t=
ell
you what the answers are.

--=20
https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org

--r7bp4rsr3tgacgpj
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEFcyURjhyM68BBPYTJIFAPaXwkfsFAl1W1JYACgkQJIFAPaXw
kfuxZQf/V3q0ENJ3jzNNjikeZr1+Wq4da/q4B0NjGkqtBmFRa2YaG2G7DXtNBWKJ
0MEwXm2jY2rcXaK3AAK29Qqjgw0Q48uAmGew8mI9jls/scH34Kh5cdK9fFvdOJ3b
4IxjIwnINUDUFiguc4B74O23QIewejGg8UXP+A5kPlMiBXDkXP9E56lbxr2a6Uz8
vf5VHGz/VUyNeyah5Rnpok6xb5TySiAe0V556QXM6l78yZEZ9yjQRlBvBg19H5Sz
PjJihAfMa7CqyvUVFzP9uqkVSoMdDEt/Xovj4evCObRc+/RQ2ev3H+o1LwsYzDYX
dACWpqt6vC7t1tGDkxqguyycrWL7HQ==
=E09C
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--r7bp4rsr3tgacgpj--