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
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
|
Return-Path: <earonesty@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org (smtp4.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::137])
by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98E27C0001
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 4 Mar 2021 19:12:55 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94DDB4EBB7
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 4 Mar 2021 19:12:55 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.25
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.25 tagged_above=-999 required=5
tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1,
FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001,
HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001,
SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: smtp4.osuosl.org (amavisd-new);
dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=q32-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (smtp4.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id N8QvUT8OJnnz
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 4 Mar 2021 19:12:54 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0
Received: from mail-pl1-x62d.google.com (mail-pl1-x62d.google.com
[IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::62d])
by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 53A554D107
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 4 Mar 2021 19:12:54 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-pl1-x62d.google.com with SMTP id d8so6279217plg.10
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 04 Mar 2021 11:12:54 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=q32-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623;
h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to
:content-transfer-encoding;
bh=a//42yBi6WI3kn5SYuVOrmX5G7LEhVF72WfkswjsQMM=;
b=VJiMJGJht+4HwG94iaO5vOGepnudhfZTGc04i0vEl0lxYGbvhF13CFTIWN5dsM+rF/
C5UkTGRLVQNcUGpuyAnDwCu5IaobxG2qdywzt8+3gL/3Lf79wJQvP9StQFGValvtuDHQ
M3p6/A6XURTVuuO/56Terf5GzVM1cdgw/MgIr/VhnJghPykfmn6ZZWgbDlaDMoEBmpJj
sSJ3eO9c9alnvsNAjARl1QnF2135ktoXMIDET3XtI+sikPwFPYaTgMksnZhLgCn3bbWm
vT59upPxbpJAfhsMAV+ugT1JzQf11vYqugi7TcLRzRaGh+UgLfaBlD2oQ2rH2mm6gZ5t
6YLg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date
:message-id:subject:to:content-transfer-encoding;
bh=a//42yBi6WI3kn5SYuVOrmX5G7LEhVF72WfkswjsQMM=;
b=CMiBHh9LwdQ6eMvTewqWYW6CyCM+xRyKpnkbpnOqAxnlM2heRNAmdt7i3iDh7MJazS
qrI56AwkIu7DDjdMl94owib+99PKRPkOB+AECWCnn44jHnRLADDIw4zY90wY5XgjDrqy
xliYUtgNFty5bqKdOI2k3yDLBFz0AsMbZSHemsr20kOBtRAF696PrOWqSkr3iQxOHxKw
+2Xo3T5I8NjsMoVvzX/mtTDPW46VKqegJGqKp9Yjy7cXac4dpd4MgYUmIb4r89jOI+59
kIE3gQHNk6m/lXgzHpIxWCrcLE3BH0L4Zzj66cWIk0FRCJLdeoYhzC7sRr4vgJobLWM3
lx8A==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531YeFYMQ02wgN0Qy47v+BvrwV28dBRv4iTMoE6EbVA8UbYZVajb
KKb037pbFvnND8mtETP5Cl/j0CAIAGsgRjkbK71+dkqxbQjp0BY=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzfZ8QJa5uMT8azzfRe7VZ5MSVoTeaUJLjLgnyZzY4UvR7SK31Wl5txAM8V2u89OMCfqLx2YYMa6xVKgoNJ9nA=
X-Received: by 2002:a62:38c8:0:b029:1ef:21ba:aba3 with SMTP id
f191-20020a6238c80000b02901ef21baaba3mr3363493pfa.24.1614883229433; Thu, 04
Mar 2021 10:40:29 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAJXtxWmwtmGSA5zG0bWmNi0=ZRMZ=kZKr3SpzBr_dQcDrRhsqA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAJXtxWmwtmGSA5zG0bWmNi0=ZRMZ=kZKr3SpzBr_dQcDrRhsqA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Erik Aronesty <erik@q32.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2021 13:40:18 -0500
Message-ID: <CAJowKg+Bs7HyrOH8ANs3nXxQ5mtmRnfHrHoRNL=hfOm+JTSuQA@mail.gmail.com>
To: John Rand <johnqrand@gmail.com>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 04 Mar 2021 19:31:22 +0000
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] MASF=true + LOT=informational
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, 04 Mar 2021 19:12:55 -0000
And of course:
1) MASF=3Dtrue + LOT=3Deventually true
Using a declining activation threshold over time gives miners control
only over the timing of activation, not the eventuality. This is
essentially the same as LOT=3Dtrue, however, it has a greater chance of
activation without requiring intervening releases or changes to the
code.
On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 1:15 PM John Rand via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> With reference to considerations https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/piperm=
ail/bitcoin-dev/2021-March/018555.html and motivation to find consensus on =
incrementally improving Bitcoin soft-fork activation mechanisms. (TL;DR Co=
nsensus is important for the activation mechanism as there are more soft-fo=
rks that Bitcoin will need. We need to incrementally improve activation me=
chanisms. It could become critical that Bitcoin prevails in achieving a fu=
ture upgrade even against powerful interests.)
>
> These activation configurations have been discussed with rationales.
>
> 1) MASF=3Dtrue + LOT=3Dfalse
>
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2021-February/018=
380.html
>
> Try LOT=3Dfalse first, with a potential to change to LOT=3Dtrue if pools =
and miners were to unreasonably delay MASF activation. (By later deploying=
a revised activation mechanism with LOT=3Dtrue or other.)
>
> Arguments against have included a major concern about perpetuating the ri=
sk demonstrated by the BIP 141 / BIP 9 with potential for misuse and misund=
erstanding of a normative mechanism as a political veto. Such veto can be =
overridden by the market, but the forced need to do so increases drama and =
risk.
>
> Arguments in favor include being defensive to avoid misinterpretation abo=
ut developer control, and being considered and incremental in starting with=
a safe conservative approach https://old.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/lcj=
hl6/taproot_activation_pools_will_be_able_to_veto/gm2l02w/
>
> Though it should be acknowledged and taken into account that disagreement=
and potential for partly incompatible clients with different activation co=
nfiguration, changes the risk calculation for LOT=3Dfalse. So that LOT=3Df=
alse may not be safer in practice, and does not wash reference client devel=
opers hands of contributing to the combined risk.
>
> 2) MASF=3Dtrue + LOT=3Dtrue
>
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2021-March/018545=
.html
>
> Arguments in favor, inverse of above. But if LOT=3Dtrue is a hidden flag=
in bitcoin reference code, or released by another project, then misinterpr=
etation of developer control is avoided.
>
> Would there be consensus for the reference implementation doing nothing, =
and signal intent to follow the market if a non-contentious LOT=3Dtrue gain=
s traction? With explicit communication of this intent and reason for init=
ial non-inclusion.
>
> There were also concerns about offending miners. This concern seems dubi=
ous to many, given pools indicated ~90% support https://taprootactivation.c=
om/ and are less detail oriented. But also BIP 148/ BIP 91 sequence events=
was enormously dangerous and worth minor social cohesion to avoid as a cat=
egory of risk.
>
> Against the realism of developer control, if there were a market need to =
reject a soft-fork, that can also be done with a UASF. But UASF is dramati=
c and the signaling direction against should be reserved for the low probab=
ility outcome.
>
> 3) MASF=3Dfalse + LOT=3Dinformational
>
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2021-February/018=
495.html
>
> No miner activation. This is interesting in using the non-standardness p=
art of schnorr to activate at a flag height without normative signaling in =
version bits. But the combined removal in this proposal of (normative sign=
aled) MASF is problematic for the needless delay it creates.
>
> It seems probable that the delay itself would motivate users to switch to=
clients with MASF+UASF (LOT=3Dtrue) in protest. It is true that schnorr r=
equires wallet work, but that overlooks the philosophical nature of the rej=
ection of unneeded delay and empirical evidence shows rather conclusively t=
hat ecosystem players are predominantly selectively lazy and only work on B=
itcoin infrastructure upgrades after the fact.
>
> Subsequent posts on the thread with this proposal discuss that informatio=
nal signaling be substituted so that users and the market can benefit from =
the information about miner intent. As it is non-normative it seems hard t=
o argue against: more information is better.
>
> 4) MASF=3Dtrue + LOT=3Dinformational
>
> From the above it would be interesting to see discussion of a combination=
of MASF=3Dtrue (same mechanism as 1 or 2) with LOT=3Dinformational (mechan=
ism from 3). Where, again, informational means signaling is provided but i=
n an optional and informational sense, that is not normative for consensus =
code, but to inform the ecosystem about a hashrate verified opt-in assertio=
n of readiness from pools. In some way that could be more reliable in sign=
aling a willing readiness rather than a UASF under duress mandatory signal.
>
> Consider also with 2 or 4) alike (or 1 after switching to 2), in the even=
t that activation were unreasonably delayed, forced miner signaling from 2)=
could be argued to be less reliable as the mechanism for signaling on pool=
s has no automated link to fullnode software version. In the MASF delay ev=
entuality, where the flag height is relied upon, users and services would b=
e well advised to ensure they are running schnorr validating fullnodes, and=
for SPV users to verify their wallet relies on schnorr upgraded fullnodes.
>
> John R
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
|