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
|
Return-Path: <rgrant@rgrant.org>
Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org (smtp4.osuosl.org [140.211.166.137])
by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4AA2C0001
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 28 Feb 2021 14:12:36 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B345D4EE47
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 28 Feb 2021 14:12:36 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5
tests=[RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001]
autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 Nas9CYFf22KZ
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 28 Feb 2021 14:12:35 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: delayed 00:05:25 by SQLgrey-1.8.0
Received: from mail-wm1-f52.google.com (mail-wm1-f52.google.com
[209.85.128.52])
by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 835C149999
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 28 Feb 2021 14:12:35 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-wm1-f52.google.com with SMTP id u11so5841117wmq.5
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 28 Feb 2021 06:12:35 -0800 (PST)
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;
bh=2Xa69/Sl5JZM851oMBWl9xp7h4rfeh7Mh3JBfd/dddo=;
b=JCbF+2yQENWIynZk8ne1Bp4TxQ6OOECHHid2Kq8Y6BUtGMsJqg1lkqllEAVSJvo54h
Nc2HbpcjiARlSvntlU1O0H4ohnV5zwJYkZPBq6DUlzo/rwdpZBSNiqn0u6FAKCcn47mM
LqGiJZahPnPciLlDTyaOUDY/tXm6A5A4zqj5+PufUG0OZnAU4UuwpLVxTMxV/h07JJM2
C0+q1ccZHqKtdS0vBgOmv4hEE16U2ROjatYpQwCEYq7+tkSxXgxatOnW1EK5CFiCBYHE
fnTSXeYIccfIBb41NBo4Lk4z3FMfHc0vUnBk9sX7XboNbJK81pDell9x1ARgi6ViQTDI
u3lQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532oVAqMPdm4QPKwRxDuyrNVTX5xaV/TbzzFQqpsOCvzR3o+N4e8
gfgaiDR4Yb76GvjQoEp84kijdxE5l1/eU8SKbWLUZv+2McH8ENpD
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwE5eKOa6/GmmdHKS/4RPQIhq6D7ST1KwcMMp/8mqq7rdkE8a2ySuduwyUCMz3PVFZNCCyyGnpZD2hT2fCpXLc=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:4eca:: with SMTP id
g10mr11646573wmq.149.1614521229003;
Sun, 28 Feb 2021 06:07:09 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <bc69d684-3d6e-624e-a859-c2ef8ad5cb13@posteo.net>
<202102271755.02271.luke@dashjr.org>
In-Reply-To: <202102271755.02271.luke@dashjr.org>
From: Ryan Grant <bitcoin-dev@rgrant.org>
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2021 14:06:42 +0000
Message-ID: <CAMnpzfpDbskd70z0fKk-_FVCM-A1qYVVCQbRVM=1KOv63RrJrQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>,
Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Exploring alternative activation mechanisms:
decreasing threshold
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, 28 Feb 2021 14:12:36 -0000
On Sat, Feb 27, 2021 at 5:55 PM Luke Dashjr via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> This has the same problems BIP149 did: since there is no signalling, it is
> ambiguous whether the softfork has activated at all.
You only need to see one block in the heaviest valid chain to dissolve
that ambiguity. There are a lot of volunteers in this space who would
(collectively) commit a few block's worth of hashrate, to know.
> Additionally, it loses the flexibility of BIP 8 to, after the initial
> deployment, move the timeoutheight sooner.
It doesn't interfere with concurrent UASFs using any combination of
timeoutheights.
|
