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
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
|
Return-Path: <eric@voskuil.org>
Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org (smtp4.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::137])
by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B206C002F
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 18 Jan 2022 22:02:27 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57D2F410BD
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 18 Jan 2022 22:02:27 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5
tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1,
RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001]
autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: smtp4.osuosl.org (amavisd-new);
dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=voskuil-org.20210112.gappssmtp.com
Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (smtp4.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id X3oP1xHg-1EN
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 18 Jan 2022 22:02:26 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0
Received: from mail-pj1-x1031.google.com (mail-pj1-x1031.google.com
[IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::1031])
by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1C608410BC
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 18 Jan 2022 22:02:26 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-pj1-x1031.google.com with SMTP id
m8-20020a17090a4d8800b001b4f361964fso622116pjh.3
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 18 Jan 2022 14:02:26 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=voskuil-org.20210112.gappssmtp.com; s=20210112;
h=from:to:references:in-reply-to:subject:date:message-id:mime-version
:content-transfer-encoding:thread-index:content-language;
bh=EoTLfXukcTCunRT5tFjkDKS/Jm2gIrVLJNx5uPsrYX0=;
b=51fsYIaU7Nn+5T+97AMUhFjBQFCe25epVhtZy6YinBsVPB3g1TNvRZLlqUKP2Z7NXY
QDoG6QkLDgynW6z0feYnVcQMmOvQkn9y3juyySZU9bO85I8LhhL+tF7AONzEtmx1/3sG
vuM7yPO2CyDtshL13l9hvxw9d5D2qimOEMlKlkrfsM1PuSvWRgaPJn/CFjFPUB5VFLBS
lhPXTn9/iqwwBHKQWxbw9Y+GTSNebA8QXwAkoq/cCgCK1PMl1ZVay8k+aTtA1CHYRlZh
7C78Whj2PXIOOsT71wLnPLMQNe5aidWIxZIy0wRyow2Jw2pEe59aUmJDMPdaW6355xr2
QgPQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20210112;
h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:references:in-reply-to:subject:date
:message-id:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:thread-index
:content-language;
bh=EoTLfXukcTCunRT5tFjkDKS/Jm2gIrVLJNx5uPsrYX0=;
b=dihhpONNyQ3o/8BPoKg2FCmLdXbm82xpHo4h+WLuQdBBDHp5uwerZTTfcAK41WlVAN
e48kSZjmOMS1Z0nuLQ7SNPYJwswts9fze7pKuAJkCffh+n0V6/Var75kZRK2+sgiFYMy
yq9VNDPe3Y7BkFNHq5ip0wXBKHVY/+dyU4fPa3xq/fUqluncTZ1cJkMAlv/f3tDRaHAu
3IV35rU+yf9+aI2yK7mnW3KNJRQ0tOf/VufnBIacfBpzBOPDtVQsf61RDQmcm/baFRkG
vADoyeX6mDrF9AjW7rZ4+CBv6fIGZHYPCkvkZyTUEJcaa0QEeVDLdC+FDaJeZM0J9PSb
P6OA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531+1TudqJoLL1mDrndqDac0EYv4ukxcYY0ZLTyF1Y2X4NVtB45p
15ukzk5822Kr50Jb11+Hj/7utmTa2bcs4w==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyXLJfSyFoRlXmgEXY/yd+i+TQ10kZZz/amMvwSwxBko92uoxIw3vzykpEudcGusqCKdIPmlg==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:90b:1802:: with SMTP id
lw2mr689266pjb.37.1642543345161;
Tue, 18 Jan 2022 14:02:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ERICDESKTOP ([2601:600:9c00:1d0::4623])
by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id l9sm8975663pfe.69.2022.01.18.14.02.24
(version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128);
Tue, 18 Jan 2022 14:02:24 -0800 (PST)
From: <eric@voskuil.org>
To: "'Luke Dashjr'" <luke@dashjr.org>,
"'Bitcoin Protocol Discussion'" <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
References: <202201182119.02687.luke@dashjr.org>
In-Reply-To: <202201182119.02687.luke@dashjr.org>
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2022 14:02:24 -0800
Message-ID: <02cc01d80cb7$1339c050$39ad40f0$@voskuil.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AQIXp3h1JQb5nuD7yIsGg/xB1hoY6KvqF1hw
Content-Language: en-us
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] CTV BIP review
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Tue, 18 Jan 2022 22:02:27 -0000
I won't comment on CTV at this point, but these comments on BIP9 and BIP8
deserve a response, given the intense obfuscation below.
The only material distinction between BIP9 and BIP8 is that the latter may
activate without signaled support of hash power enforcement.
As unenforced soft forks are not "backward compatible" they produce a chain
split. It was for this reason alone that BIP8 never gained sufficient
support.
Taproot activation was in no way a compromise between enforced and
unenforced activation. Unenforced activation was wholly rejected.
> BIP 9 at this point represents developers attempting to disregard and
impose their will over community consensus, as well as an attempt to force a
miner veto backdoor/vulnerability on deployment. It should never be used
again."
This appears to be the start of another marketing campaign, an attempt to
reclaim Taproot activation as some sort of "win" over the "miner backdoor".
The same sort of misleading campaign was waged in the wake of segwit, and
led directly to the conflict around Taproot activation.
The differences between ST and BIP9 are inconsequential in this regard. The
criticism you are making of BIP9 above applies equally to ST.
> As with Taproot, any future deployments should use BIP 8 again
This is one of the most misleading statements I've seen here. It's not
technically a lie, because it states what "should" happen. But it is clearly
intended to lead people to believe that BIP8 was actually used ("again") -
it was not. ST was some technical tweaks to BIP9.
I am making no statement whatsoever on what "should" happen. My interest is
in providing accurate information so that people can make informed
decisions.
The outright deception around this one topic has led to significant
unnecessary conflict in the community. Make your argument, but make it
honestly.
e
> -----Original Message-----
> From: bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev-bounces@lists.linuxfoundation.org> On
Behalf
> Of Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev
> Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2022 1:19 PM
> To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> Subject: [bitcoin-dev] CTV BIP review
>
> tl;dr: I don't think CTV is ready yet (but probably close), and in any
case
> definitely not worth reviving BIP 9 with its known flaws and
vulnerability.
...
> >Deployment could be done via BIP 9 VersionBits deployed through Speedy
> Trial.
>
> Hard NACK on this. BIP 9 at this point represents developers attempting to
> disregard and impose their will over community consensus, as well as an
> attempt to force a miner veto backdoor/vulnerability on deployment. It
> should never be used again.
>
> Speedy Trial implemented with BIP 8 made sense* as a possible neutral
> compromise between LOT=True and LOT=False (which could be deployed
> prior to or in parallel), but using BIP 9 would destroy this.
>
> As with Taproot, any future deployments should use BIP 8 again, until a
better
> solution is developed. Reverting back to a known flawed and vulnerable
> activation method should not be done, and it would be better not to deploy
> CTV at all at such an expense.
>
> The fact that certain developers attempted to deploy a BIP 9 alternative
> activation for Taproot against community consensus, and that even managed
> to get released as "Bitcoin Core", makes it all the more important that
the
> community firmly rejects any further action to force this regression.
>
> * it is my opinion a BIP 8 ST would be an okay compromise under those
> circumstances; others do disagree that ST is acceptable at all
|
