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
|
Return-Path: <aj@erisian.com.au>
Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org (smtp1.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::138])
by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC296C002D
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 24 Apr 2022 12:14:38 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB2478139B
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 24 Apr 2022 12:14:38 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5
tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001,
UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 AnBuq1uecxct
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 24 Apr 2022 12:14:38 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0
Received: from azure.erisian.com.au (azure.erisian.com.au [172.104.61.193])
by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 085F58139A
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 24 Apr 2022 12:14:37 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from aj@azure.erisian.com.au (helo=sapphire.erisian.com.au)
by azure.erisian.com.au with esmtpsa (Exim 4.92 #3 (Debian))
id 1nib8L-0000DI-2v; Sun, 24 Apr 2022 22:14:34 +1000
Received: by sapphire.erisian.com.au (sSMTP sendmail emulation);
Sun, 24 Apr 2022 22:14:29 +1000
Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2022 22:14:29 +1000
From: Anthony Towns <aj@erisian.com.au>
To: Jorge =?iso-8859-1?Q?Tim=F3n?= <jtimon@jtimon.cc>
Message-ID: <20220424121429.GA7363@erisian.com.au>
References: <20220315154549.GA7580@erisian.com.au>
<CABm2gDpK8eRx3ATbxkF5ic1usUdT4vKiPJyjmPVc-HEOGkxm-g@mail.gmail.com>
<20220322234951.GB11179@erisian.com.au>
<CABm2gDoC5Y=o6Vu7urzBoioVmXBf+YBLg95w-kupx9nidRDBPg@mail.gmail.com>
<20220326014546.GA12225@erisian.com.au>
<CABm2gDpMxN0sBCpcbmvYsQbdsGp=JRjAyLhsd6BWyAxdCY95+A@mail.gmail.com>
<20220330042106.GA13161@erisian.com.au>
<CABm2gDrsZ9ZimFTkNrdj+wr7328h2N2GmRCawq8xYv3BqyHNow@mail.gmail.com>
<20220411130522.GA3633@erisian.com.au>
<CABm2gDqw7ZSLwuFvWstLpkRAFT_4DLWkhNFBLW8m_E46_VWG3A@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <CABm2gDqw7ZSLwuFvWstLpkRAFT_4DLWkhNFBLW8m_E46_VWG3A@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
X-Spam-Score-int: -18
X-Spam-Bar: -
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.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: Sun, 24 Apr 2022 12:14:39 -0000
On Sun, Apr 24, 2022 at 12:13:08PM +0100, Jorge Timón wrote:
> You're not even considering user resistance in your cases.
Of course I am. Again:
> > My claim is that for *any* bad (evil, flawed, whatever) softfork, then
> > attempting activation via bip8 is *never* superior to speedy trial,
> > and in some cases is worse.
> >
> > If I'm missing something, you only need to work through a single example
> > to demonstrate I'm wrong, which seems like it ought to be easy... But
> > just saying "I disagree" and "I don't want to talk about that" isn't
> > going to convince anyone.
The "some cases" where bip8 with lot=true is *worse* than speedy trial
is when miners correctly see that a bad fork is bad.
Under *any* other circumstance, when they're used to activate a bad soft
fork, speedy trial and bip8 are the same. If a resistance method works
against bip8, it works against speedy trial; if it fails against speedy
trial, it fails against bip8.
> Sorry for the aggressive tone, but I when people ignore some of my points
> repeteadly, I start to wonder if they do it on purpose.
Perhaps examine the beam in your own eye.
Cheers,
aj
|
