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
|
Return-Path: <yanmaani@cock.li>
Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org (smtp4.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::137])
by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59870C0001
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 3 Mar 2021 17:30:31 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 327264A483
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 3 Mar 2021 17:30:31 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 3.604
X-Spam-Level: ***
X-Spam-Status: No, score=3.604 tagged_above=-999 required=5
tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1,
DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.246,
RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001,
RCVD_IN_RP_RNBL=1.284, RDNS_NONE=1.274, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001,
SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: smtp4.osuosl.org (amavisd-new);
dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=cock.li
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 Q79X9VjGiy_2
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 3 Mar 2021 17:30:29 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0
Received: from mail.cock.li (unknown [37.120.193.123])
by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B59254A254
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 3 Mar 2021 17:30:29 +0000 (UTC)
MIME-Version: 1.0
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cock.li; s=mail;
t=1614792620; bh=BnIRvaUQpWw1QzwcYuiq1iLB1mbNSiZDjBCLcufn5gs=;
h=Date:From:To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From;
b=kQSB/pfFFIfniNUSCk9nDQZOWIqCK5fZRgwL5homIws/TlknPQib+iWok8+Q+f22K
hZtPKFFN8lKIJlGWkU7rthR6y+bgZV1PVDimOImfXgqrpZj2Mg55gYepDd3KrnOvId
yAleAvTvh/3k1pxiZTi5VG+tK5iNxvfJwn2FDRP6siDRX2Vi7sAl5CEBZsvR/zqVWS
v4QeloMiFIPGucAZyFaCvGNmsKe3cNf6QfXdOoJfQWyXIjL8gop7s60PkOQUhTYkxG
P0+B9ce28IQHIU22lvFNysJAKvVgJ7yLQ1F8D2V3zi3d3EUZk115cjpyYM96AeAA+P
XSmx2rAAdtc4A==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII;
format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2021 17:30:20 +0000
From: yanmaani@cock.li
To: Chris Belcher <belcher@riseup.net>, Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
In-Reply-To: <3286a7eb-9deb-77d6-4527-58e0c5882ae2@riseup.net>
References: <3286a7eb-9deb-77d6-4527-58e0c5882ae2@riseup.net>
Message-ID: <85745a38e4464541d6357408fae1cfed@cock.li>
X-Sender: yanmaani@cock.li
User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.3.15
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 03 Mar 2021 17:50:41 +0000
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Making the case for flag day activation of taproot
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: Wed, 03 Mar 2021 17:30:31 -0000
On 2021-03-03 14:39, Chris Belcher via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> Enter flag day activation. With a flag day there can be no
> brinksmanship. A social media blitz cant do anything except have its
> own
> followers fork away. Crucially, miner signalling cant be used to change
> the activation date for nodes that didn't choose to and just passively
> follow signalling. Changing the activation date requires all those
> users
> to actually run different node software.
Is that supposed to be a good thing? "We should do X because it'll work"
doesn't prove X is actually good. These things can be evil, but they can
also be legitimate opposition to a change. Taking away the power of a
"social media blitz" is not guaranteed to be a good thing!
> What if one day the Core developer team uses the flag
> day method to do something bad? The bitcoin user
> community who wants to resist this can create their own
> counter-soft-fork full node. This forces a chain
> split. The real bitcoin which most people follow will be
> the chain without censorship.
[edited for brevity]
That will only work for really egregious changes. In practice, most
people will trust Core on all other (non-egregious) decisions, because
of the inertia inherent in disobeying them.
What you suggest may be an efficient way to ram taproot through, but is
it inherently good? Nothing is free. This seems like de-facto forcing
people to go along with you, because you're convinced you're right. In
this case, you are, but you'd be convinced you'd be right even if you
weren't so.
You're right in suggesting that it will work, but the reason why it will
work is because nobody wants to disobey Core. It seems immoral to
exploit this fact.
At least you shouldn't hard-code it and require dissenters to fork away.
I exhort you to consider making all this controversial stuff settings
that can be changed by RPC command or command-line flag; set the default
value sure, but requiring a fork to change it is, in my opinion,
oppressive.
(Also consider some compromise, such as ">95% miner support before flag
day or >33% on flag day")
Best wishes
Yanmaani
|
