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
|
Return-Path: <luke@dashjr.org>
Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org (smtp2.osuosl.org [140.211.166.133])
by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 653A9C000B
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 11 Mar 2022 00:37:56 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FDAA4058A
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 11 Mar 2022 00:37:56 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5,
DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1,
DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001,
SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: smtp2.osuosl.org (amavisd-new);
dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=dashjr.org
Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (smtp2.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id Sx-caD-RSIrQ
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 11 Mar 2022 00:37:55 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: delayed 00:09:19 by SQLgrey-1.8.0
Received: from zinan.dashjr.org (zinan.dashjr.org [IPv6:2001:470:88ff:2f::1])
by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3B714055A
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 11 Mar 2022 00:37:54 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from ishibashi.lan (unknown [12.190.236.210])
(Authenticated sender: luke-jr)
by zinan.dashjr.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A35F938A2135;
Fri, 11 Mar 2022 00:28:11 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=dashjr.org; s=zinan;
t=1646958514; bh=m5Y77xtm5u5w2oGH8uE2jZ0EUirbuQ8WqOvNhAqr5GU=;
h=From:To:Subject:Date:References:In-Reply-To;
b=rdNy0GBIxN09RlQJLvYx3Xu6i+28II9yNunsbtObXic/N3Hpg98bCAc0bVsFsrhED
Oh0mnR10OyNuZihxR9RAxw92+nkqu8BIFHg4+DFmqKCEyVNN1kMVqExaKBtsbpQv/T
Ibb2hLnHm2eRreF+5LHUl9dOCRC+wp5tprplClm4=
X-Hashcash: 1:25:220311:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org::Rbzfz8mqKowDnxdv:=XEP
X-Hashcash: 1:25:220311:roconnor@blockstream.com::/b6GWQzS1VMc0W2i:aiMxa
From: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org>
To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org,
"Russell O'Connor" <roconnor@blockstream.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2022 00:28:08 +0000
User-Agent: KMail/1.9.10
References: <CAMZUoKkTDjDSgnqhYio8Lnh-yTdsNAdXbDC9RQwnN00RdbbL6w@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAMZUoKkTDjDSgnqhYio8Lnh-yTdsNAdXbDC9RQwnN00RdbbL6w@mail.gmail.com>
X-KMail-QuotePrefix: >
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <202203110028.09249.luke@dashjr.org>
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 <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, 11 Mar 2022 00:37:56 -0000
On Friday 11 March 2022 00:12:19 Russell O'Connor via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> The "no-miner-veto" concerns are, to an extent, addressed by the short
> timeline of Speedy Trial. No more waiting 2 years on the miners dragging
> their feet.
It's still a miner veto. The only way this works is if the full deployment
(with UASF fallback) is released in parallel.
> If you are so concerned about listening to legitimate criticism, maybe you
> can design a new deployment mechanism that addresses the concerns of the
> "devs-do-not-decide" faction and the "no-divegent-consensus-rules"
> faction.
BIP8 already does that.
> A major contender to the Speedy Trial design at the time was to mandate
> eventual forced signalling, championed by luke-jr. It turns out that, at
> the time of that proposal, a large amount of hash power simply did not have
> the firmware required to support signalling. That activation proposal
> never got broad consensus,
BIP 8 did in fact have broad consensus before some devs decided to ignore the
community and do their own thing. Why are you trying to rewrite history?
> and rightly so, because in retrospect we see
> that the design might have risked knocking a significant fraction of mining
> power offline if it had been deployed. Imagine if the firmware couldn't be
> quickly updated or imagine if the problem had been hardware related.
They had 18 months to fix their broken firmware. That's plenty of time.
Luke
|
