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
|
Return-Path: <eric@voskuil.org>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 91B52CA5
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 16 Aug 2019 17:44:50 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-io1-f45.google.com (mail-io1-f45.google.com
[209.85.166.45])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EC15AE5
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 16 Aug 2019 17:44:49 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-io1-f45.google.com with SMTP id t6so7813693ios.7
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 16 Aug 2019 10:44:49 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=voskuil-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623;
h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc
:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to;
bh=1ISep7Sot9Tgwv5EG6G3LBJmfRPA10ONL0Hu8g+GO8U=;
b=P3tdyVOdDnjN8LLm9GadfI4TbQ9WwfUdGnwmwhUZG44X2aQ8sxG39uI/U+Y5S1VIh/
sShyBRxAmyrOydg3nrQm4PIrtV9IL9NYmC/ad//bMwLVj2czqzMCUOZE+B7D96qm118n
101LEzGhfHX0JKfWaRgT+rTfPL38wsO0s6UPIeV1Ljwno9aV+FCC7n4L5aru5ZHXFLH4
oRm0sha/jGmCX1RsF0Ei0FE3szHFrwIsui4YKuv3cwYgR5XBQv3jVbtSdipPc9thAeFn
ma7kbI2IP3h40OoV6mqVZwqSBdeUXfTtE1BiW0zqjW1RWdniZb2AwqAn3DNuE2jL+mFX
CeUA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc
:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to;
bh=1ISep7Sot9Tgwv5EG6G3LBJmfRPA10ONL0Hu8g+GO8U=;
b=NspCISU8z7F1xRlrSfe7ZN3lJKPgi0RgP1J/ucBL+iNNeSu5zF+bTfXjt4lpFTVWgp
PKnY1QdS7sFODh7OR6axptESJXEA9S9VaGDJc2K6wxDojFZ59GkNWv6q2QHfFwLqPSjr
GdVAv8Bhkh43KlM0kEuw2r8qXvQT+3/lyx50Zt4VdSNYaRxKc28sl5ivJM8rC7iUvuIb
XIRM5gA10NaHVs2E/CYmF1XKdaHvex2AdeK6yxSJLEMEo2muvwp3RoJ/vnwmFYdoP1Qe
5UwUIPJ8szTtAjDD9hcMmAn2Bf9a0utsCoPI4XhKrtOE0/jzNgxWUFpYx1ss5svh5Nxu
V6wQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWRuf/sELwlDGZ6QM50q8WDqDeQAyHpgn9mt6Uk9qd/OaesJgA4
F9N80/8Gck2Y2k0XOjJW0Sq4rg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzbuDbhsp420Zb4MOOmzMCr2x/SYDwV2wnZSqIOZBIjXKWfcDcWOCet462jS/vZRkrndRedIg==
X-Received: by 2002:a5d:8a10:: with SMTP id w16mr12306201iod.175.1565977489192;
Fri, 16 Aug 2019 10:44:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.47.133.3] (mobile-166-170-27-131.mycingular.net.
[166.170.27.131])
by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id w6sm5812832iob.29.2019.08.16.10.44.48
(version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128);
Fri, 16 Aug 2019 10:44:48 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
From: Eric Voskuil <eric@voskuil.org>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (16F203)
In-Reply-To: <20190816160650.artngylrzy2id5tr@petertodd.org>
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2019 13:44:47 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <2377A2C2-04E6-4128-A756-2909474C423C@voskuil.org>
References: <CAFmfg2tv4AP6GYSeHkgOYBKiWa3ia_KxWWBBjqY5u4-GkW6oLw@mail.gmail.com>
<20190816160650.artngylrzy2id5tr@petertodd.org>
To: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE,
RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 16 Aug 2019 19:33:23 +0000
Cc: John Newbery <john@johnnewbery.com>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Burying CSV and segwit soft fork activations
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, 16 Aug 2019 17:44:50 -0000
Thanks for adding this to the record.
And for the record I=E2=80=99ll reiterate here, as I did with BIP90, that th=
is is a hard fork.
e
> On Aug 16, 2019, at 12:06, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.l=
inuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>=20
>> On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 11:23:37AM -0400, John Newbery via bitcoin-dev wr=
ote:
>> 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 BI=
P
>> 9 version bits signaling, BIP 148 UASF, or a combination of the two.
>=20
> I just wanted to elaborate on this excellent point:
>=20
> This is debatable because Bitcoin is a decentralized, soft-forks are backw=
ards
> 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 B=
IP9
> version bits.
>=20
> We can observe the fact that 100% of known blocks produced after Aug 1st 2=
017
> have complied with segwit rules, and the BIP9 signalling protocol for segw=
it.
> But strictly speaking we don't really know why that happened. It's possibl=
e
> that miners were running the BIP9 signalling Bitcoin Core release around t=
hat
> 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 did=
n't
> actually mine segwit transactions. Each scenario leads to the same externa=
lly
> observable outcome.
>=20
> Furthermore there's the question as to why miners were producing
> segwit-compliant blocks: perhaps they thought the vast majority of economi=
cally
> significant nodes would reject their blocks? Perhaps they just wanted to
> enforce segwit?
>=20
> These are all questions that have plausible answers, backed by evidence an=
d
> argument. But because Bitcoin is a decentralized network no authority can t=
ell
> you what the answers are.
>=20
> --=20
> https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
|
