path: root/6a/f9695dafa783183e8331bf44d5b6982b915e47

Return-Path: <zachgrw@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp3.osuosl.org (smtp3.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::136])
 by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBD6BC002C
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Thu, 21 Apr 2022 12:49:31 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2DD160B5A
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Thu, 21 Apr 2022 12:49:31 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 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,
 HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001,
 SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: smtp3.osuosl.org (amavisd-new);
 dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from smtp3.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1])
 by localhost (smtp3.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
 with ESMTP id omYwVE12VagU
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Thu, 21 Apr 2022 12:49:31 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0
Received: from mail-il1-x136.google.com (mail-il1-x136.google.com
 [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::136])
 by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1200860A77
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Thu, 21 Apr 2022 12:49:30 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-il1-x136.google.com with SMTP id i8so2973473ila.5
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Thu, 21 Apr 2022 05:49:30 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112;
 h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to;
 bh=YXOE0wGUndf08LbghYLD+5YowMXG15OG5uzXY4IAFOM=;
 b=Rt0RXKreyO+bRyNc4upsrVY74WuRIkmFbTRQ9S7ccwTiBzemOV2AcM3PnmliGSRxd3
 VLmVA9FuHbf/7/oeO1HNmekqU2VuOHgJE0y1Mc8+NbpNeYoxxCCZ2IlFuMEAkpRcJ1Ch
 bphJtzO7cW2cBsu3BhNs13F0+10pQXpZNMiSyBONgLZDAC4M6BKvBfIxAqGGSlToqNFS
 Goeo1sP5QSkAQ+M7VVQ16lWoohnSd6cTGcoKksdvEsYF7v8OCYJBZdbzCXEhvjaqKMa8
 qlNAjJWaH+YsHfd6p9oNvB4nHmErow/ZY4GMg12WzrQLDxh99aPPs1Qib1TUzqcRam/Z
 S0Lg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
 d=1e100.net; s=20210112;
 h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date
 :message-id:subject:to;
 bh=YXOE0wGUndf08LbghYLD+5YowMXG15OG5uzXY4IAFOM=;
 b=Y7RKHL7B0ODW+z/HxsPwAB5cgnuCTZg68KpcNhDZCQMn4+yRtZ2GwuNacO+5Z19SJH
 Ytryco4bRDWU9SWsILs0cHx7fqk3m06C1mtxr+tkQPdVKd9mh9z4ew2TjJhwYbnvua35
 k6YKCj8R1h3FPZtLXLl/aqbOrgjSgKkHpVyxwIipp/JPPayU1VAVAzQWpdVLsV0JRgS9
 a2fOOMS4sbWbMx++WlphGGTHqaZI37yI+GGfPRukbULIq3fL7fDqYZBYAudfIvjDP4to
 wjJMxP8VP8oJWJkKe8odDbnZQAytC8wnihKS6lOc0EUS0RZhQQD5BHApvuT87WBokndF
 hG5Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531FoQXuJP1L7EvS35ULhNPTAya5TyLjCr1RDEPyyIy3IPeY71q2
 CFgUaIPSm/+Rj29gUHluPemXAH4+N8MlFZygJVZbYoHK
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyRrIHEIbNmYkCydRXk36V0xrcvxHttvX/uVwZ4I6i20fPsy8MerlBGomEclqIVw/Bxs84JD2dWu7agcE0cNRs=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6e02:1d04:b0:2cc:4c42:9b99 with SMTP id
 i4-20020a056e021d0400b002cc4c429b99mr5039485ila.168.1650545370083; Thu, 21
 Apr 2022 05:49:30 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAD5xwhjVS4Y4e3qDWzJfva+0hiKpe8-WqmX_kUHrpfXmG5sMXw@mail.gmail.com>
 <uUzpB7Sapu5q3qxF7voLmwRIJfLPGCwcelhFVR8BClM7HBi9n86zj1A6SeYBdKZXOGL-8C049G1mEURDkyNMhksyPMfjIMPJXHoidOydAT8=@protonmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <uUzpB7Sapu5q3qxF7voLmwRIJfLPGCwcelhFVR8BClM7HBi9n86zj1A6SeYBdKZXOGL-8C049G1mEURDkyNMhksyPMfjIMPJXHoidOydAT8=@protonmail.com>
From: Zac Greenwood <zachgrw@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2022 14:49:19 +0200
Message-ID: <CAJ4-pEAsyeqq0wM7dJgbBb-RLKbgWpzuLikrBFBBMtz2zm4aCA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>, 
 Michael Folkson <michaelfolkson@protonmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000007834cb05dd298a98"
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 21 Apr 2022 13:00:43 +0000
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] 7 Theses on a next step for BIP-119
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: Thu, 21 Apr 2022 12:49:32 -0000

--0000000000007834cb05dd298a98
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

On Wed, 20 Apr 2022 at 15:49, Michael Folkson via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

Assuming 90 percent of miners don't signal for it in one of the Speedy
> Trial windows then the activation attempt will have failed and it will be
> back in Jeremy's court whether he tries again with a different activation
> attempt.
>
> Assuming 90 percent of miners do signal for it (unlikely in my opinion but
> presumably still a possibility) then the CTV soft fork could activate
> unless full nodes resist it.
>

This is wrong. Miners do not have the mandate to decide the faith of
softforks. The MO of softforks is that once a softfork has been merged, it
already has consensus and must be activated by miners eventually. The
various activation methods exist to ensure miners cannot sabotage a
softfork that has consensus.

The way you phrase it, makes it sound like miners have any say over
softforks. This is not the case.

Zac

>

--0000000000007834cb05dd298a98
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div><div dir=3D"auto">On Wed, 20 Apr 2022 at 15:49, Michael Folkson via bi=
tcoin-dev &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" targ=
et=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt; wrote:<br></div=
><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div></div><div><div dir=3D"auto"><div class=3D"gma=
il_quote"></div></div></div><div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D=
"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;pad=
ding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204)"><div style=3D"font-family=
:arial;font-size:14px"></div><div style=3D"font-family:arial;font-size:14px=
">Assuming 90 percent of miners don&#39;t signal for it in one of the Speed=
y Trial windows then the activation attempt will have failed and it will be=
 back in Jeremy&#39;s court whether he tries again with a different activat=
ion attempt.<br></div><div style=3D"font-family:arial;font-size:14px"><br><=
/div><div style=3D"font-family:arial;font-size:14px">Assuming 90 percent of=
 miners do signal for it (unlikely in my opinion but presumably still a pos=
sibility) then the CTV soft fork could activate unless full nodes resist it=
.</div></blockquote><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div></div><div><div dir=3D"auto=
">This is wrong. Miners do not have the mandate to decide the faith of soft=
forks. The MO of softforks is that once a softfork has been merged, it alre=
ady has consensus and must be activated by miners eventually. The various a=
ctivation methods exist to ensure miners cannot sabotage a softfork that ha=
s consensus.</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">The way you=
 phrase it, makes it sound like miners have any say over softforks. This is=
 not the case.</div></div><div><div dir=3D"auto"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"=
><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">Zac</div><blockquote class=
=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;bo=
rder-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204)">=
<div style=3D"font-family:arial;font-size:14px" dir=3D"auto"> </div></block=
quote></div></div>
</div>

--0000000000007834cb05dd298a98--