Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org (smtp1.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::138]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC296C002D for ; Sun, 24 Apr 2022 12:14:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB2478139B for ; Sun, 24 Apr 2022 12:14:38 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.901 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp1.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AnBuq1uecxct for ; Sun, 24 Apr 2022 12:14:38 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 Received: from azure.erisian.com.au (azure.erisian.com.au [172.104.61.193]) by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 085F58139A for ; Sun, 24 Apr 2022 12:14:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from aj@azure.erisian.com.au (helo=sapphire.erisian.com.au) by azure.erisian.com.au with esmtpsa (Exim 4.92 #3 (Debian)) id 1nib8L-0000DI-2v; Sun, 24 Apr 2022 22:14:34 +1000 Received: by sapphire.erisian.com.au (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Sun, 24 Apr 2022 22:14:29 +1000 Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2022 22:14:29 +1000 From: Anthony Towns To: Jorge =?iso-8859-1?Q?Tim=F3n?= Message-ID: <20220424121429.GA7363@erisian.com.au> References: <20220315154549.GA7580@erisian.com.au> <20220322234951.GB11179@erisian.com.au> <20220326014546.GA12225@erisian.com.au> <20220330042106.GA13161@erisian.com.au> <20220411130522.GA3633@erisian.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) X-Spam-Score-int: -18 X-Spam-Bar: - Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion 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: Sun, 24 Apr 2022 12:14:39 -0000 On Sun, Apr 24, 2022 at 12:13:08PM +0100, Jorge Timón wrote: > You're not even considering user resistance in your cases. Of course I am. Again: > > My claim is that for *any* bad (evil, flawed, whatever) softfork, then > > attempting activation via bip8 is *never* superior to speedy trial, > > and in some cases is worse. > > > > If I'm missing something, you only need to work through a single example > > to demonstrate I'm wrong, which seems like it ought to be easy... But > > just saying "I disagree" and "I don't want to talk about that" isn't > > going to convince anyone. The "some cases" where bip8 with lot=true is *worse* than speedy trial is when miners correctly see that a bad fork is bad. Under *any* other circumstance, when they're used to activate a bad soft fork, speedy trial and bip8 are the same. If a resistance method works against bip8, it works against speedy trial; if it fails against speedy trial, it fails against bip8. > Sorry for the aggressive tone, but I when people ignore some of my points > repeteadly, I start to wonder if they do it on purpose. Perhaps examine the beam in your own eye. Cheers, aj