1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
|
Return-Path: <pete@petertodd.org>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 563E72C
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 12 May 2017 22:22:27 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from outmail148102.authsmtp.net (outmail148102.authsmtp.net
[62.13.148.102])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8ADBE134
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 12 May 2017 22:22:26 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-c232.authsmtp.com (mail-c232.authsmtp.com [62.13.128.232])
by punt20.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id v4CMMKf5081623;
Fri, 12 May 2017 23:22:20 +0100 (BST)
Received: from petertodd.org (ec2-52-5-185-120.compute-1.amazonaws.com
[52.5.185.120]) (authenticated bits=0)
by mail.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id v4CMMI4K073920
(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO);
Fri, 12 May 2017 23:22:19 +0100 (BST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by petertodd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 49365400DD;
Fri, 12 May 2017 22:22:18 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by localhost (Postfix, from userid 1000)
id 435C620486; Fri, 12 May 2017 18:22:14 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 18:22:14 -0400
From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
To: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org>
Message-ID: <20170512222214.GA4462@fedora-23-dvm>
References: <201705121922.57445.luke@dashjr.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="YZ5djTAD1cGYuMQK"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <201705121922.57445.luke@dashjr.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
X-Server-Quench: 76b69216-3761-11e7-829f-00151795d556
X-AuthReport-Spam: If SPAM / abuse - report it at:
http://www.authsmtp.com/abuse
X-AuthRoute: OCd2Yg0TA1ZNQRgX IjsJECJaVQIpKltL GxAVKBZePFsRUQkR
aAdMdwAUFVQNAgsB AmEbWVdeUl97W2M7 bghPaBtcak9QXgdq
T0pMXVMcUgEbfGF4 AmUeVRp7dQUIfXZ2 YwhlWCJdVUZ7c1t+
RUhVCGwHMGB9YGIW Bl1YdwJRcQRDe0tA b1YxNiYHcQ5VPz4z
GA41ejw8IwAXAgVt EEknKVUZQg4QHzE6 ThRKEDMhGlcOSiA+
KQBuNF8VVFoBeks/ PEBJ
X-Authentic-SMTP: 61633532353630.1037:706
X-AuthFastPath: 0 (Was 255)
X-AuthSMTP-Origin: 52.5.185.120/25
X-AuthVirus-Status: No virus detected - but ensure you scan with your own
anti-virus system.
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW
autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP: Block signal enforcement via tx fees
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 22:22:27 -0000
--YZ5djTAD1cGYuMQK
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 07:22:56PM +0000, Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> I've written a new BIP draft for OP_CHECKBLOCKVERSION to allow the commun=
ity=20
> to put economic pressure on miners to deploy softforks without the extrem=
e of=20
> a UASF.
>=20
> https://github.com/luke-jr/bips/blob/bip-cbv/bip-cbv.mediawiki
I strongly disagree with this proposal.
nVersion signaling is already technically unenforceable, in the sense that =
we
don't have good ways of ensuring miners actually adopt the rules they're
claiming to signal. Equally, it's users who ultimately adopt rules, not min=
ers,
and attempting to pay miners to signal certain bits will further confuse th=
is
point.
Quite likely the outcome of users trying to anonymously pay anonymous miner=
s to
signal certain bits will be the complete breakdown of the honesty of the
nVersion signalling system, currently enforced only by "gentlemans agreemen=
t".
A more productive direction would be a direct coin-owner signalling process,
with users taking action based on what provable coin-ownership has signalle=
d.
Also, as an aside, this "specification" again shows the inadequacy and
unreadability of English language specifications. I'd strongly suggest you
delete it and instead mark the "reference implementation" as the specificat=
ion.
--=20
https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
--YZ5djTAD1cGYuMQK
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJZFjWUAAoJECSBQD2l8JH7eEMH/2Vtbl3oDycuJZ5TQgvj55x5
0lMod3nzh51PBfUSaIEefDxHbXvacl6QDsRusGOU27VcxxX+pcnrl8TVbmR5URO6
5z5L2AffJtnNLKWvqAxWSaH8jJr0Ss9QyGcGArjKySa3ZqdKSq/S0cKI1NeBz1Fw
0rRgFXps6uVGjOzfveNtzGvJcGyuhlfcKPwkeHEmBmnl0l6ZSzRNaTaPE3SRZqqe
foe/i7ZAvaodhNKbicX2Y8EpE8pOW4/AV4gG9JmAPxj9vn9NiOveDYVhyOPDGncO
0Q3dLOwwGEaswZpxuLEd/c7M7LaxJmjHh9c4H0e5Fa4aK0ohsHtEubeXh/i3AUI=
=dqOY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--YZ5djTAD1cGYuMQK--
|
