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
|
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 DA348480
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 13 May 2017 03:26:00 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-pf0-f177.google.com (mail-pf0-f177.google.com
[209.85.192.177])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AF30DAD
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 13 May 2017 03:25:59 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-pf0-f177.google.com with SMTP id n23so33382574pfb.2
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 12 May 2017 20:25:59 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=voskuil-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623;
h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version
:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding;
bh=V1XC6p5i5fwEuKCR2MGN61Tb393AR/+jQyRAgBUxcaY=;
b=B6UGFrIvikA0sW5z3tOp/KwG3awXwk1uJgFa1d1/YwDaGLqfBzBwp8QFUjlKHEQR47
m4Q4GI+z15ihC8QmZ5RP2MTqO06dnko6FFAEfCeetEmB6SAYm9EuM519kgNcH9NtVoF5
XF9B9xKY/ecC8S5xRU9UaDxMr2hea8ada4HdS/RYbPOGDGE1cCWSGjVnybnFFly0UsIR
Jb50OtBFli2BdXghaoXr6QNMZU2YEMijiwZ3tVpt2ro/5KshmlwLO/BdylSX/vRpXk7h
31qpsxfic2UAMY6YiD/cdlVP66GsP7rQwU3B/mYfvnw0QUMrxZaNIdW/QpJj6samSGD7
+ByQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date
:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding;
bh=V1XC6p5i5fwEuKCR2MGN61Tb393AR/+jQyRAgBUxcaY=;
b=KX9rUInMH6uIGBIflodW+eEsoOcDSRW4Q5bvbIEw6YVEDnHgG6+YH5iP29R+XQkgaj
MjU5eshsLGG1Epalkl6AthamtlMbvLBdRh27mIIzyZBz3MncVP04T5wmnz8Ou/vYcrWY
MP7zf3i0d+OdU7sYhGuSkrJp2mFUQrL+bF+P2GFEmuRs76SrRgiafWaaDwmLqUOKMzPU
e2Qvzy7f1MveMlXvo0rCbMgVBbHLm60N03XzTZlxNq13uVlzxpN1C8ZSsTUCstEk+NK2
E4EtAb2vIlkjzHGPaB1VO/OoZ9GNvcLA5KAhDClW50TATOfqFqInre7iTB0xu+5H0AW2
NLxQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AODbwcCjW95ukNPe1ch9Ov/ooY08igZQG68/on4Pt7GzwboSBiYYNQmn
d9GgvmgXqLC0qQ==
X-Received: by 10.99.98.66 with SMTP id w63mr6796818pgb.223.1494645959199;
Fri, 12 May 2017 20:25:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2601:600:9000:d69e:61d3:178c:ac5f:3df2?
([2601:600:9000:d69e:61d3:178c:ac5f:3df2])
by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id t5sm7861295pgo.48.2017.05.12.20.25.57
(version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128);
Fri, 12 May 2017 20:25:58 -0700 (PDT)
To: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org>, Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>,
ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>, bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
References: <201705121922.57445.luke@dashjr.org>
<20170512222214.GA4462@fedora-23-dvm>
<201705130049.33798.luke@dashjr.org>
From: Eric Voskuil <eric@voskuil.org>
X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110
Message-ID: <c1a9b1d9-2810-0343-980d-45000c8600a8@voskuil.org>
Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 20:26:08 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/45.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <201705130049.33798.luke@dashjr.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
DKIM_VALID,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: Sat, 13 May 2017 03:38:29 +0000
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: Sat, 13 May 2017 03:26:01 -0000
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
If people want to influence the decisions of miners, all they need to
do is mine.
I do not see why any person would want to pay, and then trust, another
to mine accordingly. Each person can mine and attain their level of
influence. This not only avoids the side payment, but earns the person
money.
There is nothing inherently wrong with paying people to run nodes or
signal "readiness", but there is no reason whatsoever to consider
these ideas beneficial from a personal/economic or
security/decentralization standpoint.
If you are not running a node you are not part of the economic
consensus. If you are not mining you have no say in transaction
ordering. The "solution" is both obvious and necessary to secure Bitcoin
.
If a person does not want to bother then he/she clearly does not have
a strong opinion. As developers we should be focused on reducing the
complexities of mining and of validation, not finding ways for people
to avoid participating in these necessarily distributed roles.
e
On 05/12/2017 05:49 PM, Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> On Friday 12 May 2017 10:22:14 PM Peter Todd wrote:
>> 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 miners, and attempting to pay
>> miners to signal certain bits will further confuse this point.
>
> This BIP doesn't change that. Enforcement remains primarily by
> users.
>
>> Quite likely the outcome of users trying to anonymously pay
>> anonymous miners to signal certain bits will be the complete
>> breakdown of the honesty of the nVersion signalling system,
>> currently enforced only by "gentlemans agreement".
>
> You assume users will pay for signalling of softforks prematurely.
> So long as it waits until deployment of the softfork is
> widespread, this risk is minimal. At worst, it creates risks
> similar to a UASF. So long as UASF is the alternative, this way
> seems strictly better.
>
>> 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 specification.
>
> How so?
>
> On Friday 12 May 2017 10:17:30 PM ZmnSCPxj wrote:
>> Minor editorial nitpick, this paragraph is repeated, maybe one of
>> these should be Testnet?
>>
>> For Bitcoin '''mainnet''', the BIP8 '''starttime''' will be TBD
>> (Epoch timestamp TBD) and BIP8 '''timeout''' will be TBD (Epoch
>> timestamp TBD).
>>
>> For Bitcoin '''mainnet''', the BIP8 '''starttime''' will be TBD
>> (Epoch timestamp TBD) and BIP8 '''timeout''' will be TBD (Epoch
>> timestamp TBD).
>
> Fixed, thanks.
>
> Luke _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev
> mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)
iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJZFnzNAAoJEDzYwH8LXOFOlMsH/2Li7lDTr57EC2mSt4BuCf3Q
Q1sx21CBumm6OQKMxd207wgXTaxVJVmrGPXfJ6ZW8Bf+2tMKgc/LsZfzXdEo5+Fx
iTkdgJeW8QbKiEGzOFKMxWXH9jyCnd0WcDnKw/v7WqUhYfy2c9wz9RzCMY5iJqph
xd2+DeiEIjXIvE+l2TXGwjnB8Wp41QeY0I98kG3HHwNvNREbbGS/BjtLj5+eBygU
m+6dxkJoEttms31F47WFoZRzN7u5pe3BY5kDfZdVkbG7MOomSYwlhMvR3PtA1wrz
FeAUcHpp9MPj+qgHGwAGMfJiG/5WsVSrl/dJTm68zPOdwH60fMNNT/Srfbj1Ty8=
=9Xik
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
|
