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
|
Return-Path: <luke@dashjr.org>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3386B259
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 13 May 2017 16:43:45 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from zinan.dashjr.org (zinan.dashjr.org [192.3.11.21])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0368AD
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sat, 13 May 2017 16:43:44 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from ishibashi.localnet (unknown
[IPv6:2001:470:5:265:a45d:823b:2d27:961c])
(Authenticated sender: luke-jr)
by zinan.dashjr.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DF1F938A0087;
Sat, 13 May 2017 16:42:46 +0000 (UTC)
X-Hashcash: 1:25:170513:pete@petertodd.org::UqGNN5PM2/8sUYHs:cYS3
X-Hashcash: 1:25:170513:ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com::OaaY9dvBWHwa4zwX:bu2eS
X-Hashcash: 1:25:170513:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org::V=GWOHpge3PWtSB3:dMZeF
From: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org>
To: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
Date: Sat, 13 May 2017 16:42:44 +0000
User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/4.9.16-gentoo; KDE/4.14.29; x86_64; ; )
References: <201705121922.57445.luke@dashjr.org>
<201705130049.33798.luke@dashjr.org>
<20170513124848.GC8884@fedora-23-dvm>
In-Reply-To: <20170513124848.GC8884@fedora-23-dvm>
X-PGP-Key-Fingerprint: E463 A93F 5F31 17EE DE6C 7316 BD02 9424 21F4 889F
X-PGP-Key-ID: BD02942421F4889F
X-PGP-Keyserver: hkp://pgp.mit.edu
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
charset="iso-8859-15"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <201705131642.45124.luke@dashjr.org>
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,
RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
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 16:43:45 -0000
On Saturday 13 May 2017 12:48:48 PM Peter Todd wrote:
> > 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.
>
> I think you're assuming that the users paying for soft-fork signalling will
> represent an economic majority; that's not necessarily the case.
I'm assuming that if the economic majority hasn't consented to the softfork,
at least as many users will make their transactions conditional on non-
signalling.
|
