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
|
Return-Path: <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org (smtp1.osuosl.org [140.211.166.138])
by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C54DC000D
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 11 Oct 2021 19:53:52 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6CF918188B
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 11 Oct 2021 19:53:52 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.602
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.602 tagged_above=-999 required=5
tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1,
DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001,
FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL=0.5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001,
SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001]
autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: smtp1.osuosl.org (amavisd-new);
dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=protonmail.com
Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (smtp1.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id tWMpr-4YUeuT
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 11 Oct 2021 19:53:50 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0
Received: from mail-4324.protonmail.ch (mail-4324.protonmail.ch [185.70.43.24])
by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6F67C80F11
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 11 Oct 2021 19:53:50 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2021 19:53:39 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com;
s=protonmail; t=1633982027;
bh=THmPo4JZMglmWueoeMlSCXOr/4ulO44fusFesLRsvqw=;
h=Date:To:From:Cc:Reply-To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From;
b=G9DrGBi0HYfF1AmpdpaHSefXM2iQo5Z9OKdCmOB1YQAEFt85BYspzMxjkOvPlvmT+
VZCoYZHG8VK7dYmPRiFNB3YsyqMYGlNlf3UTaAcyoRbNlHsPtVP8bEJnnb6rKJNje+
7gyUlJHywOB9JpZCpCQFf5eNn9cDBvyuzxjG7R8A=
To: Jeremy <jlrubin@mit.edu>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
From: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Reply-To: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Message-ID: <uX7nCIoeTnpXkL-x8qJiSS1OYy-J-YhvTP7hdsljoUUDpa6c8pC34NapUWhCxYSYMY4ciwLzABVUVQwiihggvCqQhH5sfwImDIKzXl61M80=@protonmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAD5xwhj3JCxH1=5Tj+hgiSxLWchLgT584X0YutKVeuibnpwmtA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <LmX3Gnfkf1T0Eb_wUXxPe8c0Tf2DNipfIqufkRS6oOPhttr4iZIOWtjUL_7QkcWEHr8eFvehHooaM140ZBKLwi98F5NwyQKSyEhAPZDK1YQ=@protonmail.com>
<CAD5xwhj3JCxH1=5Tj+hgiSxLWchLgT584X0YutKVeuibnpwmtA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] On the regularity of soft forks
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: Mon, 11 Oct 2021 19:53:52 -0000
Good morning Jeremy,
> This also has strong precedent in other important technical bodies, e.g. =
from=C2=A0https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7282=C2=A0On Consensus a=
nd Humming in the IETF.
>
> Even worse is the "horse-trading" sort of compromise: "I object to
> =C2=A0 =C2=A0your proposal for such-and-so reasons.=C2=A0 You object to m=
y proposal for
> =C2=A0 =C2=A0this-and-that reason.=C2=A0 Neither of us agree.=C2=A0 If yo=
u stop objecting to
> =C2=A0 =C2=A0my proposal, I'll stop objecting to your proposal and we'll =
put them
> =C2=A0 =C2=A0both in." =C2=A0That again results in an "agreement" of sort=
s, but instead
> =C2=A0 =C2=A0of just one outstanding unaddressed issue, this sort of comp=
romise
> results in two, again ignoring them for the sake of expedience.
>
> =C2=A0 =C2=A0These sorts of "capitulation" or "horse-trading" compromises=
have no
> =C2=A0 =C2=A0place in consensus decision making.=C2=A0 In each case, a ch=
air who looks
> =C2=A0 =C2=A0for "agreement" might find it in these examples because it a=
ppears
> =C2=A0 =C2=A0that people have "agreed".=C2=A0 But answering technical dis=
agreements is
> =C2=A0 =C2=A0what is needed to achieve consensus, sometimes even when the=
people=C2=A0
>
> who stated the disagreements no longer wish to discuss them.
>
> If you would like to advocate bitcoin development run counter to that, yo=
u should provide a much stronger refutation of these engineering norms.
The Internet has the maxim "be strict in what you provide, lenient in what =
you accept", which allows for slight incompatibilities between software to =
generally be papered over (xref the mountains of Javascript code that shim =
in various new ECMAScript features fairly reliably in a wide variety of bro=
wsers).
Bitcoin, as a consensus system, requires being paranoiacally strict on what=
transactions and blocks you accept.
Thus, the general engineering norm of separating concerns, of great applica=
tion to "lenient in what you accept" systems, may not apply quite as well t=
o "hell no I am not accepting that block" Bitcoin.
Bitcoin as well, as a resistance against state moneys, is inherently politi=
cal, and it possible that the only way out is through: we may need to resis=
t this horse-trading by other means than separating concerns, including pol=
itical will to reject capitulation despite bundling.
Regards,
ZmnSCPxj
|
